Restricting backtracking in connection calculi

Connection calculi benefit from a goal-oriented proof search, but are in general not proof confluent. A substantial amount of backtracking is required, which significantly affects the time complexity of the proof search. This paper presents a simple strategy for effectively restricting backtracking in connection calculi. In combination with a few basic techniques it provides the basis for a refined connection calculus. The paper also describes how this calculus can be implemented directly by a few lines of Prolog code. This very compact program is the core of an enhanced version of the automated theorem prover leanCoP. The performance of leanCoP is compared with other lean theorem provers, connection provers, and state-of-the-art theorem provers. The results show that restricted backtracking is a successful technique when performing proof search in connection calculi.

[1]  Reinhold Letz,et al.  Model Elimination and Connection Tableau Procedures , 2001, Handbook of Automated Reasoning.

[2]  Stephen A. Cook,et al.  The complexity of theorem-proving procedures , 1971, STOC.

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

[4]  Geoff Sutcliffe.  The 4th IJCAR Automated Theorem Proving System Competition - CASC-J4 , 2009, AI Commun..

[5]  Arild Waaler,et al.  Connections in Nonclassical Logics , 2001, Handbook of Automated Reasoning.

[6]  Andrei Voronkov,et al.  The design and implementation of VAMPIRE , 2002, AI Commun..

[7]  William F. Clocksin,et al.  Programming in Prolog , 1987, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[8]  Christoph Kreitz,et al.  T-String Unification: Unifying Prefixes in Non-classical Proof Methods , 1996, TABLEAUX.

[9]  Norbert Eisinger,et al.  A Confluent Connection Calculus , 2000, Intellectics and Computational Logic.

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

[11]  Christoph Kreitz,et al.  The ILTP Problem Library for Intuitionistic Logic , 2007, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[12]  Christoph Kreitz,et al.  A Uniform Proof Procedure for Classical and Non-Classical Logics , 1996, KI.

[13]  William McCune,et al.  OTTER 3.0 Reference Manual and Guide , 1994 .

[14]  Christoph Kreitz,et al.  Connection-based Theorem Proving in Classical and Non-classical Logics , 1999, J. Univers. Comput. Sci..

[15]  Stephan Schulz,et al.  E - a brainiac theorem prover , 2002, AI Commun..

[16]  Alberto Martelli,et al.  An Efficient Unification Algorithm , 1982, TOPL.

[17]  Elmar Eder,et al.  Relative complexities of first order calculi , 1992, Artificial intelligence = Künstliche Intelligenz.

[18]  G. Gentzen.  Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen. I , 1935 .

[19]  Wolfgang Bibel,et al.  Automated Theorem Proving , 1987, Artificial Intelligence / Künstliche Intelligenz.

[20]  Jens Otten.  ileanTAP: An Intuitionistic Theorem Prover , 1997, TABLEAUX.

[21]  Richard Statman,et al.  Intuitionistic Propositional Logic is Polynomial-Space Complete , 1979, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[22]  Bernhard Beckert.  Leant a P: Lean Tableau-based Theorem Proving , .

[23]  Geoff Sutcliffe,et al.  The TPTP Problem Library , 1994, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

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

[25]  David A. Plaisted,et al.  Eliminating duplication with the hyper-linking strategy , 1992, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[26]  Mark E. Stickel,et al.  A Prolog Technology Theorem Prover: A New Exposition and Implementation in Prolog , 1990, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[27]  Melvin Fitting,et al.  First-Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving , 1990, Graduate Texts in Computer Science.

[28]  Lincoln A. Wallen,et al.  Automated deduction in nonclassical logics , 1990 .

[29]  Bernhard Beckert,et al.  leanTAP: Lean Tableau-Based Theorem Proving (Extended Abstract) , 1994, CADE.

[30]  Peter H. Schmitt,et al.  The liberalized δ-rule in free variable semantic tableaux , 2004, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[31]  Jens Otten,et al.  Clausal Connection-Based Theorem Proving in Intuitionistic First-Order Logic , 2005, TABLEAUX.

[32]  Reiner Hähnle,et al.  Tableaux and Related Methods , 2001, Handbook of Automated Reasoning.

[33]  Mark E. Stickel,et al.  A prolog technology theorem prover: Implementation by an extended prolog compiler , 1986, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[34]  Donald W. Loveland,et al.  Mechanical Theorem-Proving by Model Elimination , 1968, JACM.

[35]  Geoff Sutcliffe,et al.  Evaluating general purpose automated theorem proving systems , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[36]  William McCune.  Otter 2.0 , 1990, CADE.

[37]  Reinhold Letz.  Properties and Relations of Tableau and Connection Calculi , 2000, Intellectics and Computational Logic.

[38]  Jens Otten,et al.  leanCoP 2.0and ileanCoP 1.2: High Performance Lean Theorem Proving in Classical and Intuitionistic Logic (System Descriptions) , 2008, IJCAR.

[39]  Jens Otten,et al.  randoCoP: Randomizing the Proof Search Order in the Connection Calculus , 2008, PAAR/ESHOL.

[40]  Wolfgang Bibel,et al.  SETHEO: A high-performance theorem prover , 1992, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[41]  Christoph Weidenbach,et al.  Computing Small Clause Normal Forms , 2001, Handbook of Automated Reasoning.

[42]  Wolfgang Bibel,et al.  leanCoP: lean connection-based theorem proving , 2003, J. Symb. Comput..

[43]  Christoph Weidenbach,et al.  System Description: SpassVersion 3.0 , 2007, CADE.

[44]  Wolfgang Bibel.  Matings in matrices , 1983, CACM.

[45]  Christoph Goller,et al.  Controlled integration of the cut rule into connection tableau calculi , 2004, Journal of Automated Reasoning.