Skip to main content

Algorithmic Aspects of Herbrand Models Represented by Ground Atoms with Ground Equations

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2392))

Abstract

Automated model building has evolved as an important sub-discipline of automated deduction over the past decade. One crucial issue in automated model building is the selection of an appropriate (finite) representation of (in general infinite) models. Quite a few such formalisms have been proposed in the literature. In this paper, we concentrate on the representation of Herbrand models by ground atoms with ground equations (GAE-models), introduced in [9]. For the actual work with any model representation, efficient algorithms for two decision problems are required, namely: The clause evaluation problem (i.e.: Given a clause C and a representation \( \mathcal{M} \) of a model, does C evaluate to “true” in this model?) and the model equivalence problem (i.e.: Given two representations \( \mathcal{M}_1 \) and \( \mathcal{M}_2 \), do they represent the same model?). Previously published algorithms for these two problems in case of GAE-models require exponential time. We prove that the clause evaluation problem is indeed intractable (that is, coNP-complete), whereas the model equivalence problem can be solved in polynomial time. Moreover, we show how our new algorithm for the model equivalence problem can be used to transform an arbitrary GAE-model into an equivalent one with better computational properties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. F. Baader and T. Nipkow. Term rewriting and All That. Cambridge University Press, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  2. P. Baumgartner, C. Fermüller, N. Peltier, and H. Zhang. Workshop: Model Computation-Principles, Algorithms, Applications. In D. McAllester, ed., Proc. 17th Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction (CADE’00), LNAI 1831, p. 513, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, June 2000. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  3. R. Caferra and N. Peltier. Extending semantic resolution via automated model building: Applications. In Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJ-CAI’95), pp. 328–334, Montréal, Québec, Canada, Aug. 1995. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  4. R. Caferra and N. Zabel. A method for simultanous search for refutations and models by equational constraint solving. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 13:613–642, 1992.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. H. Chu and D. Plaisted. CLIN-S-a semantically guided first-order theorem prover. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 18(2):183–188, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. H. Comon, M. Dauchet, R. Gilleron, F. Jacquemard, D. Lugiez, S. Tison, and M. Tommasi. Tree automata techniques and applications. Preliminary version from October, 14 1999, available at: http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/tata.

  7. N. Dershowitz and D. Plaisted. Rewriting. In J. Robinson and A. Voronkov, eds., Handbook of Automated Reasoning, volume 1, chapter 9, pp. 535–610. Elsevier and MIT Press, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  8. C. G. Fermüller and A. Leitsch. Hyperresolution and automated model building. Journal of Logic and Computation, 6(2):173–230, 1996.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. C. G. Fermüller and A. Leitsch. Decision procedures and model building in equational clause logic. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 6(1):17–41, 1998.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Z. Fülöp and S. Vágvölgyi. Ground term rewriting rules for the word problem of ground term equations. Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science, 45:186–201, Oct. 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  11. G. Gottlob and R. Pichler. Hypergraphs in model checking: Acyclicity and hypertree-width versus clique-width. In F. Orejas, P. Spirakis, and J. Leeuwen, eds., Proc. 28th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP’01), LNCS 2076, pp. 708–719, Crete, Greece, July 201. Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. B. Gramlich and R. Pichler. Algorithmic aspects of Herbrand models represented by ground atoms with ground equations. Technical report, Institut für Computersprachen, TU Wien, May 2002. Full version of this paper.

    Google Scholar 

  13. K. Hodgson and J. Slaney. System description: Scott-5. In R. Goré, A. Leitsch, and T. Nipkow, eds., Proc. 1st Int. Joint Conf. on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR’01), LNAI 2083, pp. 443–447, Siena, Italy, June 2001. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  14. R. Matzinger. Comparing computational representations of Herbrand models. In G. Gottlob, A. Leitsch, and D. Mundici, eds., Proc. 5th Kurt Gödel Colloquium-Computational Logic and Proof Theory (KGC’97), LNCS 1289, pp. 203–218, Vienna, Austria, Aug. 1997. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  15. R. Matzinger. Computational Representations of Models in First-Order Logic. PhD thesis, Vienna University of Technology, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  16. N. Peltier. Tree automata and automated model building. Fundamenta Informaticae, 30(1):59–81, 1997.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. D. Plaisted and A. Sattler-Klein. Proof lengths for equational completion. Information and Computation, 125(2):154–170, 1996.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. H. Seidl. Deciding equivalence of finite tree automata. SIAM Journal on Computing,, 19(3):424–437, June 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  19. J. Slaney. FINDER: Finite domain enumerator-system description. In A. Bundy, ed., Proc. 12th Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction (CADE’94), LNAI 814, pp. 798–801, Nancy, France, June 26-July 1 1994. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  20. W. Snyder. A fast algorithm for generating reduced ground rewriting systems from a set of ground equations. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 15:415–450, 1993.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. T. Tammet. Resolution Methods for Decision Problems and Finite Model Building. PhD thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  22. S. Winker. Generation and verification of finite models and counterexamples using an automated theorem prover answering two open questions. Journal of the ACM, 29(2):273–284, 1982.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. J. Zhang and H. Zhang. System description: Generating models by SEM. In M. McRobbie and J. Slaney, eds., Proc. 13th Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction (CADE’96), LNAI 1104, pp. 308–312, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, July 30-August 3 1996. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Gramlich, B., Pichler, R. (2002). Algorithmic Aspects of Herbrand Models Represented by Ground Atoms with Ground Equations. In: Voronkov, A. (eds) Automated Deduction—CADE-18. CADE 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2392. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45620-1_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45620-1_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-43931-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45620-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics