Skip to main content

Labelled Clauses

  • Conference paper
Automated Deduction – CADE-21 (CADE 2007)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 4603))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We add labels to first-order clauses to simultaneously apply superpositions to several proof obligations inside one clause set. From a theoretical perspective, the approach unifies a variety of deduction modes. These include different strategies such as set of support, as well as explicit case analysis, e.g., splitting. From a practical perspective, labelled clauses offer advantages in the case of related proof obligations resulting from multiple conjectures over the same axiom set or from a single conjecture that is a large conjunction. Here we can share clauses (e.g., the axioms and clauses deduced from them, share Skolem symbols), share deduced clause variants, and transfer lemmas between the different obligations. Motivated by software verification, we have created a prototype implementation of labelled clauses that supports multiple conjectures, and we provide convincing experiments for the benefits.

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

Access this chapter

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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ball, T., Podelski, A., Rajamani, S.K.: Boolean and cartesian abstraction for model checking C programs. In: Margaria, T., Yi, W. (eds.) ETAPS 2001 and TACAS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2031, pp. 268–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Basin, D., D’Agostino, M., Gabbay, D.M., Matthews, S., Viganò, L.: Labelled Deduction. Applied Logic Series, vol. 17. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Bonacina, M.P.: Towards a unified model of search in theorem-proving: subgoal-reduction strategies. J. Symb. Comput. 39(2), 209–255 (2005)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction of approximation of fixed points. In: POPL, pp. 238–252 (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Graf, S., Saïdi, H.: Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Green, C.: Theorem-proving by resolution as a basis for question-answering systems. Machine Intelligence 4, 183–205 (1969)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Hähnle, R.: Tableaux and related methods. In: Robinson, A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) Handbook of Automated Reasoning, ch. 6, vol. 1, pp. 103–177. Elsevier, North-Holland (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lahiri, S., Ball, T., Cook, B.: Predicate abstraction via symbolic decision procedures. In: Etessami, K., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) CAV 2005. LNCS, vol. 3576, pp. 24–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lev-Ami, T., Immerman, N., Reps, T.W., Sagiv, M., Srivastava, S., Yorsh, G.: Simulating reachability using first-order logic with applications to verification of linked data structures. In: Nieuwenhuis, R. (ed.) Automated Deduction – CADE-20. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3632, pp. 99–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lev-Ami, T., Sagiv, M.: TVLA: A system for implementing static analyses. In: Palsberg, J. (ed.) SAS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1824, Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lev-Ami, T., Weidenbach, C., Reps, T., Sagiv, M.: Experimental version of SPASS for multiple conjectures (2007), Available at http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~tla/SPASS

  12. Loginov, A., Reps, T., Sagiv, M.: Abstraction refinement via inductive learning. In: Etessami, K., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) CAV 2005. LNCS, vol. 3576, pp. 519–533. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nelson, C.G., Oppen, D.C.: A simplifier based on efficient decision algorithms. In: POPL, pp. 141–150 (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A.: Decision procedures for SAT, SAT modulo theories and beyond. The BarcelogicTools. In: Sutcliffe, G., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3835, pp. 23–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Riazanov, A., Voronkov, A.: Splitting without backtracking. In: IJCAI, pp. 611–617 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Riazanov, A., Voronkov, A.: The design and implementation of VAMPIRE. AI Communications 15(2-3), 91–110 (2002)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Sagiv, M., Reps, T., Wilhelm, R.: Parametric shape analysis via 3-valued logic. TOPLAS, 217–298 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schulz, S.: E – A Brainiac Theorem Prover. Journal of AI Communications 15(2/3), 111–126 (2002)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Voronkov, A.: Personal communication (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Weidenbach, C.: Combining superposition, sorts and splitting. In: Robinson, A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) Handbook of Automated Reasoning, ch. 27, vol. 2, pp. 1965–2012. Elsevier, North-Holland (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Weidenbach, C., Brahm, U., Hillenbrand, T., Keen, E., Theobald, C., Topic, D.: SPASS version 2.0. In: Voronkov, A. (ed.) Automated Deduction - CADE-18. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2392, pp. 275–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Whittemore, J., Kim, J., Sakallah, K.A.: SATIRE: A new incremental satisfiability engine. In: DAC, pp. 542–545 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wolf, A.: Strategy selection for automated theorem proving. In: Giunchiglia, F. (ed.) AIMSA 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1480, pp. 452–465. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Wos, L., Robinson, G.A., Carson, D.F.: Efficiency and completeness of the set of support strategy in theorem proving. J. ACM 12(4), 536–541 (1965)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Yorsh, G., Reps, T., Sagiv, M.: Symbolically computing most-precise abstract operations for shape analysis. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 530–545. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Frank Pfenning

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Lev-Ami, T., Weidenbach, C., Reps, T., Sagiv, M. (2007). Labelled Clauses. In: Pfenning, F. (eds) Automated Deduction – CADE-21. CADE 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4603. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73595-3_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73595-3_21

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-73594-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-73595-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics