Skip to main content

Using matings for pruning connection tableaux

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Automated Deduction — CADE-15 (CADE 1998)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1421))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Tableau calculi and the connection method are generally considered as related paradigms in automated deduction. However, in their essence, the frameworks are based on different concepts, and there is a large potential for cross-fertilization which is by far not exploited. In this paper, we demonstrate how the matings concept, which is central to the connection method framework, can be used to identify significant redundancies in the search for connection tableau proofs. The redundancies we discuss arise from the fact that different tableaux may encode the same mating. We concentrate on certain permutations of connection tableaux that occur when so-called reduction steps are performed in the tableau construction. Those permutations can be avoided without having to store the corresponding matings, which would be expensive. Instead the input formula is augmented with a literal ordering which is used in the connection tableau calculus to prune certain reduction steps. With this technique a significant reduction of the search space for almost every non-Horn formula can be achieved. Furthermore, the method can be implemented very easily and has almost no run-time overhead.

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

  1. P. Andrews. Theorem Proving via General Matings. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 28(2):193–214, 1981.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. O. W. Astrachan and M. E. Stickel. Caching and Lemmaizing in Model Elimination Theorem Provers. Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-11), LNAI 607, pages 224–238, Springer, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  3. W. Bibel. On Matrices withConnections. Journal of the ACM, 28:633–645, 1981.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. W. Bibel. Automated Theorem Proving. Vieweg, 2nd edition, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  5. M. Fitting. First-Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving, Springer, 2nd edition, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  6. J. D. Horton and B. Spencer. Clause trees: a tool for understanding and implementing resolution in automated deduction. Artificial Intelligence, 92:25–89, 1997.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. O. Ibens and R. Letz. Subgoal Alternation in Model Elimination. In Proceedings of TABLEAUX'97, LNAI 1227, pages 201–215, Springer, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  8. R. A. Kowalski and D. Kuehner. Linear Resolution with Selection Function. Artificial Intelligence, 2:227–260, 1970.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. R. Letz, J. Schumann, S. Bayerl, and W. Bibel. SETHEO: A High-Performance Theorem Prover. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 8(2):183–212, 1992.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. R. Letz. First-Order Calculi and Proof Procedures for Automated Deduction. PhD thesis, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt, 1993 (http://wwwjessen.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/personen/letz.html).

    Google Scholar 

  11. R. Letz, K. Mayr, and C. Goller. Controlled Integration of the Cut Rule into Connection Tableaux Calculi. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 13:297–337, 1994.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. R. Letz. Clausal Tableaux. In W. Bibel, P. H. Schmitt, editors, Automated Deduction. A basis for applications, Vol. 1, pages 39–68, Kluwer, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  13. R. Letz. First-order Tableau Methods. In M. D'Agostino, D. Gabbay, R. HÄhnle, J. Posegga, editors, Handbook of Tableau Methods, Kluwer, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  14. D. W. Loveland. Mechanical Theorem Proving by Model Elimination. Journal of the ACM, 15(2):236–251, 1968.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. D. W. Loveland. Automated Theorem Proving: a Logical Basis. North-Holland, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  16. M. Moser, O. Ibens, R. Letz, J. Steinbach, C. Goller, J. Schumann, K. Mayr. SETHEO and E-SETHEO. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 18:237–246, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. D. Prawitz. An Improved Proof Procedure. Theoria, 26:102–139, 1960.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. S. Reeves. Semantic tableaux as a framework for automated theorem-proving. In C. S. Mellish and J. Hallam, editors, Advances in Artificial Intelligence (Proceedings of AISB-87), pages 125–139, Wiley, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  19. R. M. Smullyan. First-Order Logic. Springer, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  20. M. A. Stickel. A Prolog Technology Theorem Prover: Implementation by an Extended Prolog Compiler. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 4:353–380, 1988.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Claude Kirchner Hélène Kirchner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Letz, R. (1998). Using matings for pruning connection tableaux. In: Kirchner, C., Kirchner, H. (eds) Automated Deduction — CADE-15. CADE 1998. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1421. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0054273

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0054273

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-64675-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69110-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics