Abstract Canonical Inference

An abstract framework of canonical inference is used to explore how different proof orderings induce different variants of saturation and completeness. Notions like completion, paramodulation, saturation, redundancy elimination, and rewrite-system reduction are connected to proof orderings. Fairness of deductive mechanisms is defined in terms of proof orderings, distinguishing between (ordinary) "fairness," which yields completeness, and "uniform fairness," which yields saturation.Comment: 28 pages, no figures, to appear in ACM Trans. on Computational Logi

Set of support, demodulation, paramodulation: a historical perspective

This article is a tribute to the scientific legacy of automated reasoning pioneer and JAR founder Lawrence T. (Larry) Wos. Larry's main technical contributions were the set-of-support strategy for resolution theorem proving, and the demodulation and paramodulation inference rules for building equality into resolution. Starting from the original definitions of these concepts in Larry's papers, this survey traces their evolution, unearthing the often forgotten trails that connect Larry's original definitions to those that became standard in the field

Theory Combination: Beyond Equality Sharing

International audienceSatisfiability is the problem of deciding whether a formula has a model. Although it is not even semidecidable in first-order logic, it is decidable in some first-order theories or fragments thereof (e.g., the quantifier-free fragment). Satisfiability modulo a theory is the problem of determining whether a quantifier-free formula admits a model that is a model of a given theory. If the formula mixes theories, the considered theory is their union, and combination of theories is the problem of combining decision procedures for the individual theories to get one for their union. A standard solution is the equality-sharing method by Nelson and Oppen, which requires the theories to be disjoint and stably infinite. This paper surveys selected approaches to the problem of reasoning in the union of disjoint theories, that aim at going beyond equality sharing, including: asymmetric extensions of equality sharing, where some theories are unrestricted, while others must satisfy stronger requirements than stable infiniteness; superposition-based decision procedures; and current work on conflict-driven satisfiability (CDSAT)

Superposition with simplification as a decision procedure for the monadic class with equality

We show that strict superposition, a restricted form of paramodulation, can be combined with specifically designed simplification rules such that it becomes a decision procedure for the monadic class with equality. The completeness of the method follows from a general notion of redundancy for clauses and superposition inferences

Disproving in First-Order Logic with Definitions, Arithmetic and Finite Domains

This thesis explores several methods which enable a first-order reasoner to conclude satisfiability of a formula modulo an arithmetic theory. The most general method requires restricting certain quantifiers to range over finite sets; such assumptions are common in the software verification setting. In addition, the use of first-order reasoning allows for an implicit representation of those finite sets, which can avoid scalability problems that affect other quantified reasoning methods. These new techniques form a useful complement to existing methods that are primarily aimed at proving validity. The Superposition calculus for hierarchic theory combinations provides a basis for reasoning modulo theories in a first-order setting. The recent account of ‘weak abstraction’ and related improvements make an mplementation of the calculus practical. Also, for several logical theories of interest Superposition is an effective decision procedure for the quantifier free fragment. The first contribution is an implementation of that calculus (Beagle), including an optimized implementation of Cooper’s algorithm for quantifier elimination in the theory of linear integer arithmetic. This includes a novel means of extracting values for quantified variables in satisfiable integer problems. Beagle won an efficiency award at CADE Automated theorem prover System Competition (CASC)-J7, and won the arithmetic non-theorem category at CASC-25. This implementation is the start point for solving the ‘disproving with theories’ problem. Some hypotheses can be disproved by showing that, together with axioms the hypothesis is unsatisfiable. Often this is relative to other axioms that enrich a base theory by defining new functions. In that case, the disproof is contingent on the satisfiability of the enrichment. Satisfiability in this context is undecidable. Instead, general characterizations of definition formulas, which do not alter the satisfiability status of the main axioms, are given. These general criteria apply to recursive definitions, definitions over lists, and to arrays. This allows proving some non-theorems which are otherwise intractable, and justifies similar disproofs of non-linear arithmetic formulas. When the hypothesis is contingently true, disproof requires proving existence of a model. If the Superposition calculus saturates a clause set, then a model exists, but only when the clause set satisfies a completeness criterion. This requires each instance of an uninterpreted, theory-sorted term to have a definition in terms of theory symbols. The second contribution is a procedure that creates such definitions, given that a subset of quantifiers range over finite sets. Definitions are produced in a counter-example driven way via a sequence of over and under approximations to the clause set. Two descriptions of the method are given: the first uses the component solver modularly, but has an inefficient counter-example heuristic. The second is more general, correcting many of the inefficiencies of the first, yet it requires tracking clauses through a proof. This latter method is shown to apply also to lists and to problems with unbounded quantifiers. Together, these tools give new ways for applying successful first-order reasoning methods to problems involving interpreted theories

A Categorical Critical-pair Completion Algorithm

AbstractWe introduce a general critical-pair/completion algorithm, formulated in the language of category theory. It encompasses the Knuth–Bendix procedure for term rewriting systems (also modulo equivalence relations), the Gröbner basis algorithm for polynomial ideal theory, and the resolution procedure for automated theorem proving. We show how these three procedures fit in the general algorithm, and how our approach relates to other categorical modeling approaches to these algorithms, especially term rewriting

Rewrite-based equational theorem proving with selection and simplification

We present various refutationally complete calculi for first-order clauses with equality that allow for arbitrary selection of negative atoms in clauses. Refutation completeness is established via the use of well-founded orderings on clauses for defining a Herbrand model for a consistent set of clauses. We also formulate an abstract notion of redundancy and show that the deletion of redundant clauses during the theorem proving process preserves refutation completeness. It is often possible to compute the closure of nontrivial sets of clauses under application of non-redundant inferences. The refutation of goals for such complete sets of clauses is simpler than for arbitrary sets of clauses, in particular one can restrict attention to proofs that have support from the goals without compromising refutation completeness. Additional syntactic properties allow to restrict the search space even further, as we demonstrate for so-called quasi-Horn clauses. The results in this paper contain as special cases or generalize many known results about Knuth-Bendix-like completion procedures (for equations, Horn clauses, and Horn clauses over built-in Booleans), completion of first-order clauses by clausal rewriting, and inductive theorem proving for Horn clauses