Advertisement

Cooperation of Decision Procedures for the Satisfiability Problem

Chapter
Part of the Applied Logic Series book series (APLS, volume 3)

Abstract

Constraint programming is strongly based on the use of solvers which are able to check satisfiability of constraints. We show in this paper a rule-based algorithm for solving in a modular way the satisfiability problem w.r.t. a class of theories Th. The case where Th is the union of two disjoint theories Th 1 and Th 2 is known for a long time but we study here different cases where function symbols are shared by Th 1 and Th 2. The chosen approach leads to a highly non-deterministic decomposition algorithm but drastically simplifies the understanding of the combination problem. The obtained decomposition algorithm is illustrated by the combination of non-disjoint equational theories.

Keywords

Function Symbol Constraint Programming Equational Theory Decomposition Algorithm Decision Algorithm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. F. Baader and K. Schulz. Combination of constraint solving techniques: An algebraic point of view. In Proceedings 6th Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications, Kaiserslautern (Germany), volume 914 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 352–366. Springer-Verlag, 1995Google Scholar
  2. F. Baader and K. Schulz. On the combination of symbolic constraints, solution domains, and constraint solvers. In Proceedings of the first International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming - CP’95, Cassis (France), volume 976 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 380–397. Springer-Verlag, 1995Google Scholar
  3. F. Baader and K. Schulz. Unification in the union of disjoint equational theories: Combining decision procedures. In Deepak Kapur, editor, 11th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Saratoga Springs (USA), volume 607 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 50–65. Springer-Verlag, June 15–18, 1992Google Scholar
  4. F. Baader and K. Schulz. Combination techniques and decision problems for disunification. Theoretical Computer Science, 142:229–255, 1995CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. G. Birkhoff. On the structure of abstract algebras. Proceedings Cambridge Phil. Soc., 31:433–454,1935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. A. Boudet, J.-P. Jouannaud, and M. Schmidt-Schauß. Unification in boolean rings and abelian groups. In C. Kirchner, editor, Unification, pages 267–296. Academic Press, London, 1990Google Scholar
  7. E. Domenjoud, F. Klay, and Ch. Ringeissen. Combination techniques for non-disjoint equational theories. In Alan Bundy, editor, Proceedings 12th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Nancy (France), volume 814 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 267–281. Springer-Verlag, June/July 1994Google Scholar
  8. A. Herold. Combination of Unification Algorithms in Equational Theories. PhD thesis, Universität Kaiserslautern (Germany), 1987zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. J.-P. Jouannaud and C. Kirchner. Solving equations in abstract algebras: a rule-based survey of unification. In J.-L. Lassez and G. Plotkin, editors, Computational Logic. Essays in honor of Alan Robinson, chapter 8, pages 257–321. The MIT press, Cambridge (MA, USA), 1991Google Scholar
  10. H. Kirchner and Ch. Ringeissen. Combining symbolic constraint solvers on algebraic domains. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 18(2):113–155, 1994CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. G. Nelson. Techniques for program verification. Technical Report CS-81–10, Xerox Palo Research Center California USA, 1981Google Scholar
  12. G. Nelson and D. C. Oppen. Simplification by cooperating decision procedures. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, l(2):245–257, October 1979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. D. C. Oppen. Complexity, convexity and combinations of theories. Theoretical Computer Science, 12:291–302, 1980CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Ch. Ringeissen. Unification in a combination of equational theories with shared constants and its application to primal algebras. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning, St. Petersburg (Russia), volume 624 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 261–272. Springer-Verlag, 1992Google Scholar
  15. Ch. Ringeissen. Combinaison de Résolutions de Contraintes. Thèse de Doctorat d’Université, Université de Nancy 1, December 1993Google Scholar
  16. M. Schmidt-Schauß. Combination of unification algorithms. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 8(1 & 2):51–100, 1989. Special issue on unification. Part twoCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. R. Shostak. A practical decision procedure for arithmetic with function symbols. Journal of the ACM, 26(2):351–360,1979CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. R. Shostak. Deciding combination of theories. Journal of the ACM, 31(1):1–12, 1984CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. E. Tidén. First-order unification in combinations of equational theories. PhD thesis, The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 1986zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. C. Tinelli. Extending the CLP scheme to unions of constraint theories. Master’s thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, October 1995Google Scholar
  21. K. Yelick. Unification in combinations of collapse-free regular theories. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 3(1 & 2):153–182, April 1987CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INRIA-Lorraine & CRIN-CNRSVillers-lès-Nancy CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations