Abstract
Reducing redundancy in search has been a major concern for automated deduction. Subgoal-reduction strategies, such as those based on model elimination and implemented in Prolog technology theorem provers, prevent redundant search by usinglemmaizing andcaching, whereas contraction-based strategies prevent redundant search by usingcontraction rules, such assubsumption. In this work we show that lemmaizing and contraction can coexist in the framework ofsemantic resolution. On the lemmaizing side, we define two meta-level inference rules for lemmaizing in semantic resolution, one producing unit lemmas and one producing non-unit lemmas, and we prove their soundness. Rules for lemmaizing are meta-rules because they use global knowledge about the derivation, e.g. ancestry relations, in order to derive lemmas. Our meta-rules for lemmaizing generalize to semantic resolution the rules for lemmaizing in model elimination. On the contraction side, we give contraction rules for semantic strategies, and we define apurity deletion rule for first-order clauses that preserves completeness. While lemmaizing generalizes success caching of model elimination, purity deletion echoes failure caching. Thus, our approach integrates features of backward and forward reasoning. We also discuss the relevance of our work to logic programming.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Anantharaman, S. and Bonacina, M. P., “An Application of Automated Equational Reasoning to Many-Valued Logic,” inProceedings of the Second International Workshop on Conditional and Typed Term Rewriting Systems (M. Okada and S. Kaplan, eds.),number 516 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Montréal, Canada, June 1990, Springer-Verlag, pp. 156–161, 1990.
Anantharaman, S. and Hsiang, J., “Automated Proofs of the Moufang Identities in Alternative Rings,”Journal of Automated Reasoning, 6, 1, pp. 76–109, 1990.
Astrachan, O. L., “Investigations in Theorem Proving Based on Model Elimination,”Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, Duke University, 1992.
Astrachan, O. L. and Loveland, D. W., “METEORs: High Performance Theorem Provers Using Model Elimination,” inAutomated Reasoning: Essays in Honor of Woody Bledsoe (R. S. Boyer, ed.), Automated Reasoning Series, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 31–60, 1991.
Astrachan, O. L. and Stickel, M. E., “Caching and Lemmaizing in Model Elimination Theorem Provers,” inEleventh Conference on Automated Deluction, volume 607 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (D. Kapur, ed.), Saratoga Springs, New York, U.S.A., June 1992, Springer-Verlag, pp. 224–238, 1992. Full version available asTechnical Report, 513, SRI International, December 1991.
Bachmair, L. and Ganzinger, H., “On Restrictions of Ordered Paramodulation with Simplification,” inTenth Conference on Automated Deduction, volume 449 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (M. E. Stickel, ed.), Springer-Verlag, pp. 427–441, 1990.
Bonacina, M. P. and Hsiang, J., “On Rewrite Programs: Semantics and Relationship with Prolog,”Journal of Logic Programming, 14, 1 & 2, pp. 155–180, October 1992.
Bonacina, M. P. and Hsiang, J., “Towards a Foundation of Completion Procedures as Semidecision Procedures,”Theoretical Computer Science, 146, pp. 199–242, July 1995.
Bonacina, M. P. and Hsiang, J., “On Semantic Resolution with Lemmaizing and Contraction,” inFourth Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 1114 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (N. Foo and R. Goebel, eds.), Cairns, Australia, August 1996, Springer-Verlag, pp. 372–386, 1996.
Chang, C. L. and Lee, R. C.,Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving, Academic Press, New York, U.S.A., 1973.
Christian, J. D., “Fast Knuth-Bendix Completion: Summary,”, inThird Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications, volume 355 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (N. Dershowitz, ed.), Chapel Hill, North Carolina, U.S.A., April 1989, Springer-Verlag, pp. 551–555, 1989.
Davis, M. and Putnam, H., “A Computing Procedure for Quantification Theory,”Journal of the ACM, 7, pp. 201–215, 1960.
Dershowitz, N., “Canonical Sets of Horn Clauses,” inEighteenth International Conference on Automata, Languages and Programming, volume 510 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (J. Leach Albert, B. Monien, and M. Rodríguez Artalejo, eds.), Madrid, Spain, 1991, Springer-Verlag, pp. 267–278, 1991.
Fleisig, S., Loveland, D., Smiley, A., and Yarmush, D., “An Implementation of the Model Elimination Proof Procedure,”Journal of the ACM, 21, pp. 124–139, 1974.
Hsiang, J. and Rusinowitch, M., “Proving Refutational Completeness of Theorem Proving Strategies: The Transfinite Semantic Tree Method,”Journal of the ACM, 38, pp. 559–587, 1991.
Kapur, D. and Zhang, H., “RRL: A Rewrite Rule Laboratory,” inNineth Conference on Automated Deduction, volume 310 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (E. Lusk and R. Overbeek, eds.), Argonne, Illinois, U.S.A., May 1988, Springer-Verlag, pp. 768–770, 1988.
Kapur, D. and Zhang, H., “A Case Study of the Completion Procedure: Proving Ring Commutativity Problems,” inComputational Logic: Essays in Honor of Alan Robinson (J.-L. Lassez and G. Plotkin, eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 360–394, 1991.
Korf, R. E., “Depth-First Iterative Deepening: An Optimal Admissible Tree Search,”Artificial Intelligence, 27, 1, pp. 97–109, 1985.
Letz, R., Schumann, J., Bayerl, S., and Bibel, W., “SETHEO: A High Performance Theorem Prover,”Journal of Automated Reasoning, 8, 2, pp. 183–212, 1992.
Loveland, D. W., “A Simplified Format for the Model Elimination Procedure,”Journal of the ACM, 16, 3, pp. 349–363, 1969.
Loveland, D. W., “A Unifying View of Some Linear Herbrand Procedures,”Journal of the ACM, 19, 2, pp. 366–384, 1972.
McCune, W., “Experiments with Discrimination Tree Indexing and Path Indexing for Term Retrieval,”Journal of Automated Reasoning, 9, 2, pp. 147–167, 1992.
McCune, W., “Otter 3.0 Reference Manual and Guide,”Technical Report, 94/6, Mathematics and Computer Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, 1994.
McCune, W., “Solution of the Robbins Problem,”Pre-print of the Mathematics and Computer Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, 1997.
Plaisted, D. A., “Non-Horn Clause Logic Programming without Contrapositives,”Journal of Automated Reasoning, 4, 3, pp. 287–325, 1988.
Plaisted, D. A., “The Search Efficiency of Theorem Proving Strategies,” inTwelfth Conference on Automated Deduction, volume 814 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (A. Bundy, ed.), Springer-Verlag, pp. 57–71, 1994. Full version available asTechnical Report of the Max Planck Institut für Informatik, MPI-I-94-233.
Robinson, J. A., “Automatic Deduction with Hyper-Resolution,”International Journal of Computer Mathematics, 1, pp. 227–234, 1965.
Rusinowitch, M., “Theorem-Proving with Resolution and Superposition,”Journal of Symbolic Computation, 11, 1 & 2, pp. 21–50, 1991.
Shostak, R. E., “Refutation Graphs,”Artificial Intelligence, 7, pp. 51–64, 1976.
Slagle, J. R., “Automatic Theorem Proving with Renamable and Semantic Resolution,”Journal of the ACM, 14, 4, pp. 687–697, 1967.
Stickel, M. E., “A Prolog Technology Theorem Prover: Implementation by an Extended Prolog Compiler,”Journal of Automated Reasoning, 4, pp. 353–380, 1988.
Stickel, M. E., “The Path-Indexing Method for Indexing Terms,”Technical Report, 473, SRI International, 1989.
Stickel, M. E., “PTTP and Linked Inference,” inAutomated Reasoning: Essays in Honor of Woody Bledsoe (R. S. Boyer, ed.), Automated Reasoning Series, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 283–296, 1991.
Wallace, K. and Wrightson, G., “Regressive Merging in Model Elimination Tableau-Based Theorem Provers,”Journal of the IGPL, 3, 6, pp. 921–937, 1995.
Warren, D. H. D., “An Abstract Prolog Instruction Set,”Technical Report, 309, SRI International, 1983.
Warren, D. S., “Memoing for Logic Programs,”Communications of the ACM, 35, 3, pp. 94–111, 1992.
Wos, L., Carson, D., and Robinson, G., “Efficiency and Completeness of the Set of Support Strategy in Theorem Proving,”Journal of the ACM, 12, pp. 536–541, 1965.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Supported in part by the National Science Foundation with grant CCR-94-08667 and CCR-97-01508.
Supported in part by grant NSC 86-2213-E-002-047 and NSC 87-2213-E-002-029 of the National Science Council of the Republic of China.
Maria Paola Bonacina, Ph.D.: She is on the faculty of the Department of Computer Science of the University of Iowa. She received a laurea (1986) and a doctorate in informatics from the Universita degli Studi di Milano, and a Ph.D. in computer science from the State University of New York at Stony Brook (1992). She was awarded fellowships by the Universita degli Studi di Milano, the European Union and the General Electric Foundation. The unifying theme of her research is automated theorem proving. Her research areas include distributed automated deduction, the theory of search and strategy analysis, completion-based theorem proving, category theory for computer science, term rewriting systems, logic programming, and manyvalued logic.
Jieh Hsiang, Ph.D.: He is a Professor of Computer Science at the National Taiwan University and is also the Director of the Center of Excellence for Research in Computer Systems of the National Taiwan University. Professor Hsiang is known for work in term rewriting systems and automated deduction. His other research interests include logic programming, programming logics, computer viruses, and intelligent agents. Recently he has also become interested in the digitization of Taiwanese and Chinese historical records and heritage. Professor Hsiang received a B.S. degree in mathematics from National Taiwan University in 1976 and a Ph.D. degree in computer science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1982. Before returning to Taiwan in 1993, he was a Professor of Computer Science at the State University of New York st Stony Brook.
About this article
Cite this article
Bonacina, M.P., Hsiang, J. On semantic resolution with lemmaizing and contraction and a formal treatment of caching. NGCO 16, 163–200 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037315
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037315