Advertisement

Cooperation between top-down and bottom-up theorem provers by subgoal clause transfer

  • Dirk Fuchs
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1476)

Abstract

Top-down and bottom-up theorem proving approaches have each specific advantages and disadvantages. Bottom-up provers profit from strong redundancy control and suffer from the lack of goal-orientation, whereas top-down provers are goal-oriented but have weak calculi when their proof lengths are considered. In order to integrate both approaches our method is to achieve cooperation between a top-down and a bottom-up prover: the top-down prover generates subgoal clauses, then they are processed by a bottom-up prover. We discuss theoretic aspects of this methodology and we introduce techniques for a relevancy-based filtering of generated subgoal clauses. Experiments with a model elimination and a superposition prover reveal the high potential of our approach.

Keywords

Inference Rule Theorem Prover Search State Model Elimination Proof Search 
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. [AL97]
    O.L. Astrachan and D.W. Loveland. The use of Lemmas in the Model Elimination Procedure. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 19(1):117–141, 1997.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [AS92]
    O.L. Astrachan and M.E. Stickel. Caching and Lemmaizing in Model Elimination Theorem Provers. In Proceedings of CADE-11, pages 224–238, Saratoga Springs, USA, 1992. Springer LNAI 607.Google Scholar
  3. [BG94]
    L. Bachmair and H. Ganzinger. Rewrite-based equational theorem proving with selection and simplification. Journal of Logic and Computation, 4(3):217–247, 1994.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. [DF94]
    J. Denzinger and M. Fuchs. Goal oriented equational theorem proving. In Proc. 18th KI-94, pages 343–354, Saarbrücken, 1994. LNAI 861.Google Scholar
  5. [DF98]
    J. Denzinger and D. Fuchs. Enhancing conventional search systems with multi-agent techniques: a case study. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Multi Agent Systems (ICMAS) 98, Paris, France, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. [Fuc98a]
    D. Fuchs. Cooperation between Top-Down and Bottom-Up Theorem Provers by Subgoal Clause Transfer. Technical Report SR-98-01, University of Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. [Fuc98b]
    M. Fuchs. Similarity-Based Lemma Generation for Model Elimination. In Proc. CADE-15, Lindau, Germany, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. [Kor85]
    Richard E. Korf. Depth-First Iterative-Deepening: An Optimal Admissible Tree Search. AI, 27:97–109, 1985. Elsevier Publishers B.V. (North-Holland).Google Scholar
  9. [LMG94]
    R. Letz, K. Mayr, and C. Goller. Controlled Integration of the Cut Rule into Connection Tableau Calculi. Journal of Automated Reasoning, (13):297–337, 1994.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [Lov68]
    D.W. Loveland. Mechanical Theorem-Proving by Model Elimination. Journal of the ACM, 15(2), 1968.Google Scholar
  11. [MIL+97]
    M. Moser, O. Ibens, R. Letz, J. Steinbach, C. Goller, J. Schumann, and K. Mayr. The Model Elimination Provers SETHEO and E-SETHEO. special issue of the Journal of Automated Reasoning, 1997.Google Scholar
  12. [Sch94]
    J. Schumann. Delta — a bottom-up preprocessor for top-down theorem provers. system abstract. In Proceedings of CADE-12. Springer, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. [SSY94]
    G. Sutcliffe, C.B. Suttner, and T. Yemenis. The TPTP Problem Library. In CADE-12, pages 252–266, Nancy, 1994. LNAI 814.Google Scholar
  14. [Sti88]
    M.E. Stickel. A prolog technology theorem prover: Implementation by an extended prolog compiler. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 4:353–380, 1988.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [Sut92]
    G. Sutcliffe. A heterogeneous parallel deduction system. In Proc. FGCS’92 Workshop WS, 1992.Google Scholar
  16. [WGR96]
    C. Weidenbach, B. Gaede, and G. Rock. Spass & Flotter Version 0.42. In Proc. CADE-13, pages 141–145, New Brunswick, 1996. LNAI 1104.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk Fuchs
    • 1
  1. 1.FB InformatikUniversitÄt KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations