Optimizing proof search in model elimination
Many implementations of model elimination perform proof search by iteratively increasing a bound on the total size of the proof. We propose an optimized version of this search mode using a simple divide-and-conquer refinement. Optimized and unoptimized modes are compared, together with depth-bounded and best-first search, over the entire TPTP problem library. The optimized size-bounded mode seems to be the overall winner, but for each strategy there are problems on which it performs best. Some attempt is made to analyze why. We emphasize that our optimization, and other implementation techniques like caching, are rather general: they are not dependent on the details of model elimination, or even that the search is concerned with theorem proving. As such, we believe that this study is a useful complement to research on extending the model elimination calculus.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.O. L. Astrachan and M. E. Stickel. Caching and lemmaizing in model elimination theorem provers. In D. Kapur, editor, 11th International Conference on Automated Deduction, volume 607 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 224–238, 1992. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- 2.P. Baumgartner and U. Furbach. Model elimination without contrapositives and its application to PTTP. Research report 12-93, Institute for Computer Science, University of Koblenz, 1993.Google Scholar
- 4.M. J. C. Gordon and T. F. Melham. Introduction to HOL: a theorem proving environment for higher order logic. Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
- 7.R. Letz, K. Mayr, and C. Goller. Controlled integrations of the cut rule into connection tableau calculi. Technical Report AR-94-01, TU München, 1994.Google Scholar
- 8.V. Lifschitz. Mechanical Theorem Proving in the USSR: the Leningrad School. Monograph Series on Soviet Union. Delphic Associates, 1986. See also ‘What is the inverse method?’ in the Journal of Automated Reasoning, vol. 5, pp. 1–23, 1989.Google Scholar
- 10.D. Michie. “Memo” functions and machine learning. Nature, 218:19–22, 1968.Google Scholar
- 11.L. C. Paulson. Isabelle: a generic theorem prover, volume 828 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1994. With contributions by Tobias Nipkow.Google Scholar
- 15.C. B. Suttner and G. Sutcliffe. The TPTP problem library. Technical Report AR-95-03, TU München, 1995.Google Scholar
- 16.M. Tarver. An examination of the Prolog Technology Theorem-Prover. In M. E. Stickel, editor, 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction, volume 449 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 322–335, 1990. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- 17.P. Weis and X. Leroy. Le langage Caml. InterEditions, 1993. See also the CAML Web page: http://pauillac.inria.fr/caml/.Google Scholar