A proof theory for tractable approximations of propositional reasoning

  • Fabio Massacci
Automated Reasoning
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1321)


This paper proposes an uniform framework for the proof theory of tractable approximations of propositional reasoning. The key idea is the introduction of approximate proofs. This makes possible the development of an approximating sequent calculus for propositional deduction where proofs can be sound, complete or multi-directional approximations of classical logic. We show how this calculus subsumes existing approaches to approximation such as the BCP - k family of anytime reasoners by Dalal and S - 1, S - 3 entailments by Cadoli and Schaerf.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. Anderson and N. Belnap. Entailment: the Logic of Relevance and Necessity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1975.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Ausiello, P. Crescenzi, and M. Protasi. Approximate solution of NP optimization problems. Theor. Comp. Sci., 150(1):1–55, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Bellantoni, T. Pitassi, and A. Urquhart. Approximation and small-depth frege proofs. SIAM J. of Computing, 21(6):1161–1179, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Cadoli. Tractable Reasoning in Artificial Intelligence, volume 941 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. J. Claesen, editor. Formal VLSI Correctness Verification: VLSI Design Methods, volume II. Elsevier Sci. Publishers (North-Holland), Amsterdam, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Dalal. Anytime families of tractable propositional reasoners. In International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics AI/MATH-96, pages 42–45, 1996. Extended version submitted to Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Dalal. Semantics of an anytime family of reasoners. In Proc. of the 12th Eur. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-96), pages 360–364. John Wiley Sons, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Dalal and D. W. Etherington. Tractable approximate deduction using limited vocabularies. In Proceeding of the 9th Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AI-92), pages 206–221, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    N. J. Fisher and R. E. Ladner. Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. J. of Comp. and System Sci., 18:194–211, 1979.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Hähnle. Automated Deduction in Multiple-Valued Logics, volume 10 of International Series of Monographs on Computer Science. Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Y. Halpern and Y. Moses. A guide to completeness and complexity for modal logics of knowledge and belief. Artificial Intelligence, 54:319–379, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Y. Halpern and M. Y. Vardi. Model checking vs. theorem proving: A manifesto. In J. Allen, R. Fikes, and E. Sandewall, editors, Proc. of the 2nd Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-91), 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. S. Johnson and M. R. Garey. Computers and Inctractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. Freeman, S. Francisco, 1979.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Kautz and B. Selman. Planning as satisfiability. In Proc. of the 10th Eur. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-92), pages 359–363. John Wiley & Sons, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    H. J. Levesque. A logic of implicit and explicit belief. In Proc. of the 4th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-84), pages 198–202, 1984.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    H. J. Levesque. Logic and the complexity of reasoning. J. of Philosophical Logic, 17:355–389, 1988.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Micali. CS proofs (extended abstract). In Proc. of the 35th Annual Symp. on the Found. of Comp. Sci. (FOCS-94), pages 436–453. IEEE Comp. Society Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Mundici. Satisfiability in many-valued sentential logic is NP-complete. Theor. Comp. Sci., 52(1–2):145–153, 1987.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    N. Olivetti. Tableaux and sequent calculus for minimal entailment. J. of Automated Reasoning, 9:99–139, 1992.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. Russel and S. Zilberstein. Composing real-time systems. In Proc. of the 12th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-91), pages 212–217, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Schaerf and M. Cadoli. Tractable reasoning via approximation. Artificial Intelligence, 74:1–62, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    B. Selman and H. Kautz. Knowledge compilation and theory approximation. J. of the ACM, 43(2):193–224, 1996.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R. M. Smullyan. First Order Logic. Springer-Verlag, 1968. Republished by Dover, New York, in 1995.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. Szabo, editor. The collected papers of G. Gentzen. North-Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1969.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. Urquhart. The complexity of propositional proofs. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 1(4):425–467, Dec 1995.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    H. Wang. Towards mechanical mathematics. IBM Journal for Research and Development, 4:2–22, 1960.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. Ying. A logic for approximate reasoning. J. of Symbolic Logic, 59(3):830–837, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabio Massacci
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica e SistemisticaRomaItaly

Personalised recommendations