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

Automated deduction with built-in theories: completeness results and constraint solving techniques

Postprint (published version

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

New results on rewrite-based satisfiability procedures

Program analysis and verification require decision procedures to reason on theories of data structures. Many problems can be reduced to the satisfiability of sets of ground literals in theory T. If a sound and complete inference system for first-order logic is guaranteed to terminate on T-satisfiability problems, any theorem-proving strategy with that system and a fair search plan is a T-satisfiability procedure. We prove termination of a rewrite-based first-order engine on the theories of records, integer offsets, integer offsets modulo and lists. We give a modularity theorem stating sufficient conditions for termination on a combinations of theories, given termination on each. The above theories, as well as others, satisfy these conditions. We introduce several sets of benchmarks on these theories and their combinations, including both parametric synthetic benchmarks to test scalability, and real-world problems to test performances on huge sets of literals. We compare the rewrite-based theorem prover E with the validity checkers CVC and CVC Lite. Contrary to the folklore that a general-purpose prover cannot compete with reasoners with built-in theories, the experiments are overall favorable to the theorem prover, showing that not only the rewriting approach is elegant and conceptually simple, but has important practical implications.Comment: To appear in the ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 49 page

Studies in the completeness and efficiency of theorem-proving by resolution

Inference systems Τ and search strategies E for T are distinguished from proof procedures β = (T,E) The completeness of procedures is studied by studying separately the completeness of inference systems and of search strategies. Completeness proofs for resolution systems are obtained by the construction of semantic trees. These systems include minimal α-restricted binary resolution, minimal α-restricted M-clash resolution and maximal pseudo-clash resolution. Certain refinements of hyper-resolution systems with equality axioms are shown to be complete and equivalent to refinements of the pararmodulation method for dealing with equality. The completeness and efficiency of search strategies for theorem-proving problems is studied in sufficient generality to include the case of search strategies for path-search problems in graphs. The notion of theorem-proving problem is defined abstractly so as to be dual to that of and" or tree. Special attention is given to resolution problems and to search strategies which generate simpler before more complex proofs. For efficiency, a proof procedure (T,E) requires an efficient search strategy E as well as an inference system T which admits both simple proofs and relatively few redundant and irrelevant derivations. The theory of efficient proof procedures outlined here is applied to proving the increased efficiency of the usual method for deleting tautologies and subsumed clauses. Counter-examples are exhibited for both the completeness and efficiency of alternative methods for deleting subsumed clauses. The efficiency of resolution procedures is improved by replacing the single operation of resolving a clash by the two operations of generating factors of clauses and of resolving a clash of factors. Several factoring methods are investigated for completeness. Of these the m-factoring method is shown to be always more efficient than the Wos-Robinson method

Systèmes Canoniques Abstraits : Application à la Déduction Naturelle et à la Complétion

Canonical Systems and Inference (ACSI) were introduced by N. Dershowitz and C. Kirchner to formalize the intuitive notion of good proof and good inference appearing typically in first-order logic or in Knuth-Bendix like completion procedures. Since this abstract framework, based on proof orderings, is intended to be generic, it is of fundamental interest to show its adequacy to represent the main systems of interest. It is here done for minimal propositional natural deduction, and for the standard (Knuth-Bendix) completion, closing an open question. For the first proof system, a generalisation of the ACSI is needed. We provide here a conservative one, in the sense that all results of the original framework still hold. For the second one, two proof representations, proof terms and proofs by replacement, are compared to built a proof ordering that provides an instantiation adapted to the ACSI framework