Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Parallelization of deduction strategies: An analytical study

  • Published:
Journal of Automated Reasoning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we present a general analysis of the parallelization of deduction strategies. We classify strategies assubgoal-reduction strategies, expansion-oriented strategies, andcontraction-based strategies. For each class we analyze how and what types of parallelism can be utilized. Since the operational semantics of deduction-based programming languages can be construed as subgoal-reduction strategies, our analysis encompasses, at the abstract level, both strategies for deduction-based programming and those for theorem proving. We distinguish different types of parallel deduction based on the granularity of parallelism. These two criteria — the classification of strategies and of types of parallelism — provide us with a framework to treat problems and with a grid to classify approaches to parallel deduction. Within this framework, we analyze many issues, including the dynamicity and size of the database of clauses during the derivation, the possibility of conflicts between parallel inferences, and duplication versus sharing of clauses. We also suggest the type of architectures that may be suitable for each class of strategies. We substantiate our analysis by describing existing methods, emphasizing parallel expansion-oriented strategies and parallel contraction-based strategies for theorem proving. The most interesting and least explored by existing approaches are the contraction-based strategies. The presence of contraction rules — rules that delete clauses — and especially the application ofbackward contraction, emerges as a key issue for parallelization of these strategies. Backward contraction is the main reason for the impressive experimental success of contraction-based strategies. Our analysis shows that backward contraction makes efficient parallelization much more difficult. In our analysis, coarse-grain parallelism appears to be the best choice for parallelizing contraction-based reasoning. Accordingly, we propose a notion ofparallelism at the search level as coarse-grain parallelism for deduction.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anantharaman, S. and Hsiang, J.: Automated proofs of the Moufang identities in alternative rings,Journal of Automated Reasoning 6 (1990), 76–109.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anantharaman, S. and Andrianarivelo, N.: Heuristical criteria in refutational theorem proving, in A. Miola (ed.),Proceedings of the Symposium on the Design and Implementation of Systems for Symbolic Computation, Capri, Italy, 1990, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 429, 1990, pp. 184–193.

  3. Astrachan, O. L. and Loveland, D. W.: METEORs: High performance theorem provers using model elimination, in R. S. Boyer (ed.),Automated Reasoning: Essays in Honor of Woody Bledsoe, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991.

  4. Avenhaus, J. and Denzinger, J.: Distributing equational theorem proving, in C. Kirchner (ed.),Proc. 5th Conf. on Rewriting Techniques and Applications, Montreal, Canada, 1993, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 690, 1993, pp. 62–76.

  5. Bachmair, L., Dershowitz, N. and Hsiang, J.: Orderings for equational proofs, inProc. 1st Annual IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science, Cambridge, Massachussets, 1986, pp. 346–357.

  6. Bachmair, L., Dershowitz, N. and Plaisted, D. A.: Completion without failure, in H. Ait-Kaci and M. Nivat (eds.),Resolution of Equations in Algebraic Structures, Vol. II: Rewriting Techniques, Academic Press, New York, 1989, pp. 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bachmair, L. and Ganzinger, H.: Non-clausal resolution and superposition with selection and redundancy criteria, inProceedings of Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 624, 1992, pp. 273–284.

  8. Bonacina, M. P. and Hsiang, J.: On fairness in distributed deduction, in P. Enjalbert, A. Finkel and K. W. Wagner (eds.),Proc. 10th Symp. on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, Würzburg, Germany, February 1993, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 665, 1993, pp. 141–152.

  9. Bonacina, M. P. and Hsiang, J.: The clause-diffusion methodology for distributed deduction, (preprint).

  10. Bonacina, M. P.: Distributed Automated Deduction, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, State University of New York at Stony Brook, 1992.

  11. Bonacina, M. P. and Hsiang, J.: Distributed deduction by clause-diffusion: The Aquarius prover, in A. Miola (ed.),Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Design and Implementation of Symbolic Computation Systems, Gmunden, Austria, 1993, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 722, 1993, pp. 272–287.

  12. Bose, S., Clarke, E. M., Long, D. E. and Michaylov, S.: Parthenon: A parallel theorem prover for non-Horn clauses,Journal of Automated Reasoning 8 (1992), 153–182.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Boyer, R. and Moore, J. S.:A Computational Logic, Academic Press, New York, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Buchberger, B.: An Algorithm for Finding a Basis for the Residue Class Ring of a Zerodimensional Polynomial Ideal (in German), Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Mathematics, University of Innsbruck, Austria, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Buchberger, B.: History and basic features of the critical-pair/completion procedure,Journal of Symbolic Computation 3 (1987), 3–38.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chakrabarti, S. and Yelick, K. A.: Implementing an irregular application on a distributed memory multiprocessor, inPrinciples and Practice of Parallel Programming, 1993.

  17. Chakrabarti, S. and Yelick, K. A.: On the correctness of a distributed memory Gröbner basis algorithm, in C. Kirchner (ed.),Proc. 5th Conf. on Rewriting Techniques and Applications, Montreal, Canada, 1993, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 690, 1993, 77–91.

  18. Chang, C. L. and Lee, R. C.:Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving, Academic Press, New York, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cheng, P. D. and Juang, J. Y.: A parallel resolution procedure based on connection graph, inProc. 7th Conf. of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, 1987, pp. 13–17.

  20. Chou, S. C.: Proving and discovering theorems in elementary geometries using Wu's method, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Mathematics, University of Texas at Austin, 1985.

  21. Clarke, E. M., Long, D. E., Michaylov, S., Schwab, S. A., Vidal, J.-P. and Kimura, S.: Parallel symbolic computation algorithms, Technical Report CMU-CS-90-182, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, 1990.

  22. Conry, S. E., MacIntosh, D. J. and Meyer, R. A.: DARES: A distributed automated reasoning system, inProc. 11th Conf. of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, 1990, pp. 78–85.

  23. Denzinger, J.: Distributed knowledge-based deduction using the team work method, Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, University of Kaiserslautern, 1991.

  24. Dershowitz, N. and Lindenstrauss, N.: An abstract concurrent machine for rewriting, in H. Kirchner and W. Wechler (eds.),Proc. 2nd Conf. on Algebraic and Logic Programming, Nancy, France, October 1990, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 463, 1990, pp. 318–331.

  25. Goguen, J. A., Leinwand, S., Meseguer, J. and Winkler, T.: The rewrite rule machine, 1988, Technical Monograph PRG-76, Oxford University Computing Laboratory, 1989.

  26. Hawley, D. J.: A Buchberger algorithm for distributed memory multi-processors, inProc. Int. Conf. of the Austrian Center for Parallel Computation, Linz, Austria, 1991, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

  27. Hoffmann, C. M. and O'Donnell, M. J.: Programming with equations,ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 4 (1982) 83–112.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hsiang, J. and Rusinowitch, M.: On word problems in equational theories, in Th. Ottman (ed.),Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on Automata, Languages and Programming, Karlsruhe, Germany, 1987, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 267, 1987, pp. 54–71.

  29. Jindal, A., Overbeek, R. and Kabat, W.: Exploitation of parallel processing for implementing high-performance deduction systems,Journal of Automated Reasoning 8 (1992), 23–38.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kapur, D. and Zhang, H.: RRL: A rewrite rule laboratory, in E. Lusk and R. Overbeek (eds.),Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction, Argonne, Illinois, May 1988, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 310, 1988, pp. 768–770.

  31. Kaser, O., Pawagi, S., Ramakrishnan, C. R., Ramakrishnan, I. V. and Sekar, R. C.: Fast parallel implementations of lazy languages — the EQUALS experience, inProc. of the ACM Conf. on LISP and Functional Programming, 1992, pp. 335–344.

  32. Kirchner, C. and Viry, P.: Implementing parallel rewriting, in B. Fronhöfer and G. Wrightson (eds.),Parallelization in Inference Systems, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 590, 1992, pp. 123–138.

  33. Knuth, D. and Bendix, P.: Simple word problems in universal algebra, in J. Leech (ed.),Computational Problems in Abstract Algebra, Pergamon Press, 1970, pp. 263–297.

  34. Korf, R. E.: Depth-first iterative deepending: An optimal admissible tree search,Artificial Intelligence 27 (1985), 97–109.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kowalski, R.: A proof procedure using connection graphs,Journal of the ACM 22(4) (1975), 572–595.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Loganantharaj, R.: Theoretical and Implementational Aspects of Parallel Link Resolution in Connection Graphs, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, Colorado State University, 1985.

  37. Loganantharaj, R. and Müller, R. A.: Parallel theorem proving with connection graphs, in Siekmann J. (ed.),Proc. 8th Conf. on Automated Deduction, Oxford, England, 1986, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 230, 1986, pp. 337–352.

  38. Loveland, D. W.: A simplified format for the model elimination procedure,Journal of the ACM 16 (1969), 349–363.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lusk, E. L. and McCune, W. W.: Experiments with ROO: A parallel automated automated deduction system, in B. Fronhöfer and G. Wrightson (eds.),Parallelization in Inference Systems, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 590, 1992, pp. 139–162.

  40. McCune, W. W.: OTTER 2.0 Users Guide, Technical Report ANL-90/9, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  41. McCune, W. W.: What's New in OTTER 2.2, Technical Memorandum ANL/MCS-TM-153, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Schumann, J. and Letz, R.: PARTHEO: A high-performance parallel theorem prover, in M. E. Stickel (ed.),Proc. 10th Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction, Kaiserslautern, Germany, 1990, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 449, 1990, pp. 28–39.

  43. Schumann, J.: Parallel theorem provers — An overview, in B. Fronhöfer and G. Wrightson (eds.),Parallelization in Inference Systems, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 590, 1992, pp. 26–50.

  44. Siegel, K.: Gröbner Bases Computation in STRAND: A Case Study for Concurrent Symbolic Computation in Logic Programming Languages, Master Thesis and Technical Report N. 90-54.0, RISC-LINZ, 1990.

  45. Stickel, M. E.: A Prolog technology theorem prover,New Generation Computing 2 (1984), 371–383.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Stickel, M. E. and Tyson, W. M.: An analysis of consecutively bounded depth-first search with applications in automated deduction,Proc. 9th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Los Angeles, California, 1985, pp. 1073–1975.

  47. Stickel, M. E.: A Prolog Technology Theorem Prover: Implementation by an extended Prolog compiler,Journal of Automated Reasoning 4 (1988), 353–380.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Suttner, C. B. and Schumann, J.: Parallel Automated Theorem Proving, unpublished manuscript, 1993.

  49. Vidal, J.-P.: The computation of Gröbner bases on a shared memory multiprocessor, in A. Miola (ed.),Proc. Int. Symp. on the Design and Implementation of Symbolic Computation Systems, Capri, Italy, 1990, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 429, 1990, 81–90, Full version available as Technical Report CMU-CS-90-163, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, 1990.

  50. Warren, D. H. D.: An abstract Prolog instruction set, Technical Note 309, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International, Menlo Park, California, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  52. Wu, W. T.: Mechanical theorem proving in elementary geometry and differential geometry, inProc. of the 1980 Beijing Symp. on Differential Geometry and Differential Equations 2 (1982), 125–138.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Yelick, K. A.: Using Abstraction in Explicitly Parallel Programs, Ph.D. Thesis, Laboratory for Computer Science, Massachussets Institute of Technology, available as Technical Report MIT/LCS/TR-507, 1991.

  54. Yelick, K. A. and Garland, S. J.: A parallel completion procedure for term rewriting systems, in D. Kapur (ed.),Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction, Saratoga Springs, New York, June 1992, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 607, 1992, pp. 109–123.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Iowa, 52242-1419, Iowa City, IA, USA

    Maria Paola Bonacina

  2. Department of Computer Science, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Jieh Hsiang

Authors
  1. Maria Paola Bonacina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jieh Hsiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Supported by the GE Foundation Faculty Fellowship to the University of Iowa and by the National Science Foundation with grant CCR-94-08667.

Supported by grant NSC 83-0408-E-002-012T of the National Science Council of the Republic of China.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bonacina, M.P., Hsiang, J. Parallelization of deduction strategies: An analytical study. J Autom Reasoning 13, 1–33 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881910

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881910

Key words

Search

Navigation