Skip to main content

A comparison of mechanisms for avoiding repetition of subdeductions in chain format linear deduction systems

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning (LPAR 1993)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 698))

  • 127 Accesses

Abstract

One problem that chain format linear deduction systems can suffer from is the necessity of repeating subdeductions when unifiable literals appear in (possibly distinct) centre chains of a deduction. Four mechanisms for avoiding the repetition are: factoring, lemmas, C-literals, and caching. These mechanisms are examined, and it is concluded that lemmas and C-literals are the mechanisms of choice for this task. A correspondance between the lemma and C-literal mechanisms is described, leading to the introduction of two new repetition avoidance mechanisms. Lemmas, C-literals, and the two new mechanisms have been performance tested. It is concluded that the absolute benefit of using any repetition avoidance mechanism is not large (in the test suite used), but that the C-literal and one of the new mechanisms do improve the performance of the host deduction system.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Andrews P.B. (1968), Resolution with Merging, In Journal of the ACM 15(3), ACM Press, New York, NY, 367–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astrachan O.L., and Stickel M.E. (1992), Caching and Lemmaizing in Model Elimination Theorem Provers, In Kapur, D. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automated Deduction (Saratoga Springs, NY, 1992), (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 607), Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 224–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleisig S., Loveland D.W., Smiley A.K., and Yarmush D.L. (1974), An Implementation of the Model Elimination Proof Procedure, In Journal of the ACM 21(1), ACM Press, New York, NY, 124–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henschen L.J., and Wos L. (1974), Unit Refutations and Horn Sets, In Journal of the ACM 21(4), ACM Press, New York, NY, 590–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowalski R.A., and Kuehner D. (1971), Linear Resolution with Selection Function, In Artificial Intellience 2, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 227–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Letz R., Schumann J., Bayerl S., and Bibel W. (1992), SETHEO: A High-Performance Theorem Prover, In Journal of Automated Reasoning 8(2), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 183–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loveland D.W. (1968), Mechanical Theorem Proving by Model Elimination, In Journal of the ACM 15(2), ACM Press, New York, NY, 236–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loveland D.W. (1969), A Simplified Format for the Model Elimination Theorem-Proving Procedure, In Journal of the ACM 16(3), ACM Press, New York, NY, 349–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loveland D.W. (1970), A Linear Format for Resolution, In Laudet M. et al. (Ed.), Proceedings of the IRIA Symposium on Automatic Demonstration (Versailles, France, 1968), Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 147–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loveland D.W. (1978), Automated Theorem Proving: a logical basis, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luckham D. (1970), Refinement Theorems in Resolution Theory, In Laudet M. et al. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Automatic Demonstration (Versailles, France, 1968), Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 163–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michie D. (1968), “Memo” Functions and Machine Learning, In Nature 218, Macmillan, London, England, 19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overbeek R., McCharen J., and Wos L. (1976), Complexity and Related Enhancements for Automated Theorem-Proving Programs, In Computers and Mathematics with Applications 2, Pergamon Press, England, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plaisted D.A. (1982), A Simplified Problem Reduction Format, In Artificial Intelligence 18, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 227–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson J.A. (1965), A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle, In Journal of the ACM 12(1), ACM Press, New York, NY, 23–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shostak R.E. (1976), Refutation Graphs, In Artificial Intelligence 7, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stickel M.E. (1986), A Prolog Technology Theorem Proven Implementation by an Extended Prolog Compiler, In Siekmann J.H. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automated Deduction (Oxford, England, 1986), (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 230), Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 573–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe G. (1990), A General Clause Theorem Prover, In Stickel M.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction (Kaiserslautern, Germany, 1990), (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 449), Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 675–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe G. (1992a), Linear-Input Subset Analysis, In Kapur, D. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automated Deduction (Saratoga Springs, NY, 1992), (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence,607), Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 268–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe G. (1992b), A Linear Deduction System with Integrated Semantic Guidance, PhD Thesis, Department of Computer Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suttner C., Sutcliffe G., and Yemenis T. (Forthcoming), The TPTP Problem Library for 1st Order Automated Theorem Provers, Department of Computer Science, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wos L., Carson D., and Robinson G.A. (1964), The Unit Preference Strategy in Theorem Proving, In Proceedings of the AFIPS 1964s Fall Joint Computer Conference (San Francisco, CA, 1964), Spartan Books, Baltimore, MD, 615–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamov N.K., and Sharonov V.I. (1969), On a class of strategies which can be used to prove theorems by the resolution principle (In Russian), In Issled, po konstruktivnoye matematikye i matematicheskoie logikye III(16), National Lending Library Russian Translating Program 5857, Boston Spa, England, 54–64.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Andrei Voronkov

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1993 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Sutcliffe, G. (1993). A comparison of mechanisms for avoiding repetition of subdeductions in chain format linear deduction systems. In: Voronkov, A. (eds) Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning. LPAR 1993. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 698. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-56944-8_64

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-56944-8_64

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-56944-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47830-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics