Automated Deduction—CADE-18

Description Logics are a family of class based knowledge representation formalisms characterised by the use of various constructors to build complex classes from simpler ones, and by an emphasis on the provision of sound, complete and (empirically) tractable reasoning services. They have a wide range of applications, but their use as ontology languages has been highlighted by the recent explosion of interest in the “Semantic Web”, where ontologies are set to play a key role. DAML+OIL is a description logic based ontology language specifically designed for use on the web. The logical basis of the language means that reasoning services can be provided, both to support ontology design and to make DAML+OIL described web resources more accessible to automated processes.

[1]  Tad Hogg,et al.  An Economics Approach to Hard Computational Problems , 1997, Science.

[2]  Patrick Prosser,et al.  HYBRID ALGORITHMS FOR THE CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION PROBLEM , 1993, Comput. Intell..

[3]  Allen Van Gelder,et al.  Satisfiability testing with more reasoning and less guessing , 1995, Cliques, Coloring, and Satisfiability.

[4]  Shin-ichi Minato,et al.  Zero-Suppressed BDDs for Set Manipulation in Combinatorial Problems , 1993, 30th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference.

[5]  Joao Marques-Silva,et al.  The Impact of Branching Heuristics in Propositional Satisfiability Algorithms , 1999, EPIA.

[6]  Stephan Schulz.  System Abstract: E 0.3 , 1999, CADE.

[7]  Toby Walsh,et al.  The SAT Phase Transition , 1994, ECAI.

[8]  Hantao Zhang,et al.  SATO: An Efficient Propositional Prover , 1997, CADE.

[9]  Philippe Chatalic,et al.  Multi-resolution on compressed sets of clauses , 2000, Proceedings 12th IEEE Internationals Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence. ICTAI 2000.

[10]  V. Vinay,et al.  Branching rules for satisfiability , 1995, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[11]  Roberto J. Bayardo,et al.  Using CSP Look-Back Techniques to Solve Real-World SAT Instances , 1997, AAAI/IAAI.

[12]  Bart Selman,et al.  Boosting Combinatorial Search Through Randomization , 1998, AAAI/IAAI.

[13]  Gernot Stenz,et al.  E-SETHEO: Design, Configuration and Use of a Parallel Automated Theorem Prover , 1999, Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[14]  Bart Selman,et al.  Heavy-Tailed Phenomena in Satisfiability and Constraint Satisfaction Problems , 2000, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[15]  Kurt Keutzer,et al.  Why is ATPG easy? , 1999, DAC '99.

[16]  Ofer Strichman,et al.  Pruning Techniques for the SAT-Based Bounded Model Checking Problem , 2001, CHARME.

[17]  James M. Crawford,et al.  Experimental Results on the Crossover Point inSatis ability , 1993 .

[18]  Dhiraj K. Pradhan,et al.  Recursive learning: a new implication technique for efficient solutions to CAD problems-test, verification, and optimization , 1994, The IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, 2003. Tutorial Guide: ISCAS 2003..

[19]  Benjamin W. Wah,et al.  A discrete Lagrangian-based global-search method for solving satisfiability problems , 1996, Satisfiability Problem: Theory and Applications.

[20]  Inês Lynce,et al.  The Puzzling Role of Simplification in Propositional Satisfiability , 2001 .

[21]  Joao Marques-Silva,et al.  Complete unrestricted backtracking algorithms for Satisfiability , 2002 .

[22]  Karem A. Sakallah,et al.  Conflict analysis in search algorithms for propositional satisfiability , 1996 .

[23]  Vishwani D. Agrawal,et al.  A transitive closure based algorithm for test generation , 1991, 28th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference.

[24]  David A. Plaisted,et al.  A Structure-Preserving Clause Form Translation , 1986, J. Symb. Comput..

[25]  Chu Min Li,et al.  Heuristics Based on Unit Propagation for Satisfiability Problems , 1997, IJCAI.

[26]  Hantao Zhang,et al.  An Efficient Algorithm for Unit Propagation , 1996 .

[27]  Chu Min Li,et al.  Integrating Equivalency Reasoning into Davis-Putnam Procedure , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[28]  Eugene Goldberg,et al.  BerkMin: A Fast and Robust Sat-Solver , 2002 .

[29]  C. Cordell Green,et al.  What Is Program Synthesis? , 1985, J. Autom. Reason..

[30]  J. Freeman.  Improvements to propositional satisfiability search algorithms , 1995 .

[31]  Gilles Dequen,et al.  A backbone-search heuristic for efficient solving of hard 3-SAT formulae , 2001, IJCAI.

[32]  Joao Marques-Silva,et al.  GRASP-A new search algorithm for satisfiability , 1996, Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Aided Design.

[33]  K. Sakallah,et al.  Backtrack Search Using ZBDDs , 2001 .

[34]  Matthias F. Stallmann,et al.  The Role of a Skeptic Agent in Testing and Benchmarking of SAT Algorithms , 2002 .

[35]  Sharad Malik,et al.  Efficient conflict driven learning in a Boolean satisfiability solver , 2001, IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design. ICCAD 2001. IEEE/ACM Digest of Technical Papers (Cat. No.01CH37281).

[36]  Jan Friso Groote,et al.  The Propositional Formula Checker HeerHugo , 2000, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[37]  Armin Biere,et al.  Symbolic Model Checking without BDDs , 1999, TACAS.

[38]  Rob A. Rutenbar,et al.  Satisfiability-based layout revisited: detailed routing of complex FPGAs via search-based Boolean SAT , 1999, FPGA '99.

[39]  Sharad Malik,et al.  Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver , 2001, Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference (IEEE Cat. No.01CH37232).