Complexity of translations from resolution to sequent calculus

Resolution and sequent calculus are two well-known formal proof systems. Their differences make them more suitable for mutually distinct tasks. Resolution and its variants are very efficient for automated reasoning and are in fact the theoretical basis of many theorem provers. However, being intentionally machine-oriented, the resolution calculus is not as natural for human beings and the input problem needs to be pre-processed to clause normal form. Sequent calculus, on the other hand, is a modular formalism that is useful for analyzing meta-properties of various logics and is, therefore, popular among proof-theorists. The input problem does not need to be pre-processed, and proofs are more detailed. However, proofs also tend to be larger and more verbose. When the worlds of proof theory and automated theorem proving meet, translations between resolution and sequent calculus are often necessary. In this paper we compare three translation methods and analyze their complexity.

[1]  Gerhard Gentzen,et al.  Investigations into Logical Deduction , 1970 .

[2]  Giselle Reis,et al.  Importing SMT and Connection proofs as expansion trees , 2015, PxTP@CADE.

[3]  Tomer Libal,et al.  Understanding Resolution Proofs through Herbrand's Theorem , 2013, TABLEAUX.

[4]  Konstantin Korovin,et al.  iProver - An Instantiation-Based Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic (System Description) , 2008, IJCAR.

[5]  Nathan Segerlind,et al.  The Complexity of Propositional Proofs , 2007, Bull. Symb. Log..

[6]  Pascal Fontaine,et al.  veriT: An Open, Trustable and Efficient SMT-Solver , 2009, CADE.

[7]  Andrei Voronkov,et al.  The Inverse Method , 2001, Handbook of Automated Reasoning.

[8]  Alexander Leitsch,et al.  System Description: The Proof Transformation System CERES , 2010, IJCAR.

[9]  Dale Miller.  Foundational proof certificates: making proof universal and permanent , 2013, LFMTP '13.

[10]  Giselle Reis,et al.  System Description: GAPT 2.0 , 2016, IJCAR.

[11]  Stephen Cook,et al.  Corrections for "On the lengths of proofs in the propositional calculus preliminary version" , 1974, SIGA.

[12]  Stephan Schulz,et al.  System Description: E 1.8 , 2013, LPAR.

[13]  Grigori Mints,et al.  Gentzen-type systems and resolution rule. II. Predicate logic , 1993 .

[14]  J. A. Robinson,et al.  A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle , 1965, JACM.

[15]  V. Orevkov.  Lower bounds for increasing complexity of derivations after cut elimination , 1982 .

[16]  Christoph Weidenbach,et al.  SPASS Version 3.5 , 2009, CADE.

[17]  Andrei Voronkov,et al.  First-Order Theorem Proving and Vampire , 2013, CAV.

[18]  Zakaria Chihani,et al.  A Semantic Framework for Proof Evidence , 2016, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[19]  Alexander A. Razborov,et al.  Complexity of Propositional Proofs , 2010, CSR.

[20]  Ashish Tiwari,et al.  Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning - Volume 9706 , 2016 .

[21]  Olivier Hermant,et al.  Resolution is Cut-Free , 2010, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[22]  Alexander Leitsch,et al.  Herbrand Sequent Extraction , 2008, AISC/MKM/Calculemus.

[23]  Lawrence C. Paulson,et al.  The Higher-Order Prover Leo-II , 2015, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[24]  Grigori Mints,et al.  Gentzen-type systems and resolution rules. Part I. Propositional logic , 1990, Conference on Computer Logic.

[25]  Alexander Leitsch,et al.  Algorithmic introduction of quantified cuts , 2014, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[26]  Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo,et al.  Atomic Cut Introduction by Resolution: Proof Structuring and Compression , 2010, LPAR.

[27]  R. Statman.  Lower bounds on Herbrand’s theorem , 1979 .

[28]  Eli Ben-Sasson,et al.  Short proofs are narrow—resolution made simple , 2001, JACM.

[29]  Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo,et al.  Scavenger 0.1: A Theorem Prover Based on Conflict Resolution , 2017, CADE.