Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A General Setting for Flexibly Combining and Augmenting Decision Procedures

  • Published:
Journal of Automated Reasoning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The efficient combining and augmenting of decision procedures are often very important for a successful use of theorem provers. There are several schemes for combining and augmenting decision procedures; some of them support handling uninterpreted functions, use of available lemmas, and the like. In this paper we introduce a general setting for describing different schemes for both combining and augmenting decision procedures. This setting is based on the macro inference rules used in different approaches. Some of these rules are abstraction, entailment, congruence closure, and lemma invoking. The general setting gives a simple description and the key ideas of one scheme and makes different schemes comparable. Also, it makes easier combining ideas from different schemes. In this paper we describe several schemes via introduced macro inference rules and report on our prototype implementation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Armando, A. and Ranise, S.: Constraint contextual rewriting, in Proceedings of the International Workshop on First Order Theorem Proving (FTP'98), Vienna, Austria, 1998, pp. 65–75.

  2. Armando, A. and Ranise, S.: A practical extension mechanism for decision procedures, in Proceedings of Formal Methods Tools 2000 (FMT'2000), 2000.

  3. Armando, A. and Ranise, S.: Termination of constraint contextual rewriting, in Proceedings of 3rd International Workshop on Frontiers of Combining Systems (FroCoS'2000), Nancy, France, 2000, pp. 47–61.

  4. Bachmair, L. and Ganzinger, H.: On restrictions of ordered paramodulation with simplification, in Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Automated Deduction, 1990, pp. 427–441.

  5. Bachmair, L. and Ganzinger, H.: Strict basic superposition, in C. Kirchner and H. Kirchner (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Automated Deduction, 1998.

  6. Bachmair, L. and Tiwari, A.: Abstract congruence closure and specializations, in D. A. MacAllester (ed.), Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-17), 2000.

  7. Barrett, C., Dill, D. and Levitt, J.: Validity checking for combinations of theories with equality, in International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, 1996, pp. 187–201.

  8. Barrett, C.W., Dill, D. L. and Stump, A.: A framework for cooperating decision procedures, in D. A. MacAllester (ed.), Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-17), 2000.

  9. Bjørner, N. S.: Integrating decision procedures for temporal verification, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, 1998.

  10. Bouhoula, A. and Rusinowitch, M.: Automated case analysis in proof by induction, in R. Bajcsy (ed.), Proc. 13th Intern. Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI '93), SanMateo,CA, 1993.

  11. Boyer, R. S. and Moore, J. S.: Integrating decision procedures into heuristic theorem provers: A case study of linear arithmetic, in J. E. Hayes, J. Richards and D. Michie (eds.), Machine Intelligence 11, 1988, pp. 83–124.

  12. Bundy, A.: The use of explicit plans to guide inductive proofs, in R. Lusk and R. Overbeek (eds.), 9th Conference on Automated Deduction, 1988, pp. 111–120. Longer version available from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper No. 349.

  13. Bundy, A.: A science of reasoning, in J.-L. Lassez and G. Plotkin (eds.), Computational Logic: Essays in Honor of Alan Robinson, 1991, pp. 178–198. Also available from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper 445.

  14. Bundy, A.: The use of proof plans for normalization, in R. S. Boyer (ed.), Essays in Honor of Woody Bledsoe, 1991, pp. 149–166. Also available from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper No. 513.

  15. Bundy, A., van Harmelen, F., Horn, C. and Smaill, A.: The Oyster-Clam system, in M. E. Stickel (ed.), Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Automated Deduction, 1990, pp. 647–648. Also available from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper 507.

  16. Busatto, R.: The use of proof planning in normalisation, Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1995.

  17. Cooper, D. C.: Theorem proving in arithmetic without multiplication, in B. Meltzer and D. Michie (eds.), Machine Intelligence 7, 1972, pp. 91–99.

  18. Craigen, D., Kromodimoeljo, S., Meisels, I., Pase, B. and Saaltink, M.: EVES: An overview, in Proceedings of Formal Software Development Methods (VDM '91),1991, pp. 389–405.

  19. Cyrluk, D., Lincoln, P. and Shankar, N.: On Shostak's decision procedure for combinations of theories, in M. A. McRobbie and J. K. Slaney (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Automated Deduction, 1996.

  20. Dershowitz, N.: Ordering for term-rewriting systems, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 17(3) (1996), 279–301.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Detlefs, D.: An overview of the extended static checking system, in Proceedings of the First Workshop on Formal Methods in Software Practice, 1996, pp. 1–9.

  22. Ehdm: User guide for the EHDM specification language and verification system, Version 6.1, Technical Report, Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, 1993.

  23. Hodes, L.: Solving problems by formula manipulation in logic and linear inequalities, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Imperial College, London, England, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Janičić, P. and Bundy, A.: Strict general setting for building decision procedures into theorem provers, in R. Goré, A. Leitsch and T. Nipkow (eds.), The 1st International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR-2001) — Short Papers, 2001, pp. 86–95.

  25. Janičić, P., Bundy, A. and Green, I.: A framework for the flexible integration of a class of decision procedures into theorem provers, in H. Ganzinger (ed.), Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-16), 1999, pp. 127–141.

  26. Kapur, D.: Shostak's congruence closure as completion, in International Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications, RTA '97, Barcelona, Spain, 1997.

  27. Kapur, D. and Nie, X.: Reasoning about numbers in Tecton, in Proceedings of 8th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, (ISMIS'94), Charlotte, NC, 1994, pp. 57–70.

  28. Kapur, D. and Subramaniam, M.: Lemma discovery in automating induction, in M. A. McRobbie and J. K. Slaney (eds.), 13th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-13), 1996, pp. 538–552.

  29. Kapur, D. and Subramaniam, M.: Using an induction prover for verifying arithmetic circuits, Software Tools for Technology Transfer 3(1) (2000), 32–65.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kreisel, G. and Krivine, J. L.: Elements of Mathematical Logic: Model Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1967.

  31. Lassez, J.-L. and Maher, M.: On Fourier's algorithm for linear arithmetic constraints, J. Automated Reasoning 9 (1992), 373–379.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Luckham, D. C., German, S. M., Von Henke, F. W., Karp, R. A., Milne, P. W., Oppen, D. C., Polak, W. and Scherlis, W. L.: Stanford Pascal verifier user manual, Technical Report, CSD Report STAN-CS-79-731, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Manna, Z.: STeP: The Stanford temporal prover, Technical Report, STAN-CS-TR-94, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Manning, A., Ireland, A. and Bundy, A.: Increasing the versatility of heuristic based theorem provers, in A. Voronkov (ed.), International Conference on Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning — LPAR 93, St. Petersburg, 1993, pp. 194–204.

  35. Mendelson, E.: Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1964.

  36. Mostowski, A.: On direct products of theories, J. Simbolic Logic 17 (1952), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Nelson, G. and Oppen, D. C.: Simplification by cooperating decision procedures, ACM Trans. Programming Languages and Systems 1(2) (1979), 245–257.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Nelson, G. and Oppen, D. C.: Fast decision procedures based on congruence closure, J. ACM 27(2) (1980),356–364. Also: Stanford CS Report STAN-CS-77-646, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Oppen, D. C.: A 222pn upper bound on the complexity of Presburger arithmetic, J. Comput. System Sci. 16(3) (1978), 323–332.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Owre, S., Rajan, S., Rushby, J. M., Shankar, N. and Srivas, M. K.: PVS: Combining specification, proof checking, and model checking, in R. Alur and T. A. Henzinger (eds.), Proceedings of the 1996 Conference on Computer-Aided Verification, New Brunswick, NJ, 1996, pp. 411–414.

  41. Presburger, M.: Ñber die Vollständigkeit eines gewissen Systems der Arithmetik ganzer Zahlen, in welchem die Addition als einzige Operation hervortritt, in Sprawozdanie z I Kongresu metematyków slowia´nskich,Warszawa 1929, 1930, pp.92–101, 395. Annotated English version also available [45].

  42. Rueß, H. and Shankar, N.: Deconstructing Shostak, in Proceedings of the Conference on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), 2001.

  43. Shostak, R. E.: Deciding combinations of theories, J. ACM 31(1) (1984), 1–12. Also: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 138, Springer-Verlag, June 1982, pp. 209–222.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Skolem, T.: Ñber einige Satzfunktionen in der Arithmetik, in J. E. Fenstad (ed.), Selected Works in Logic (by Th. Skolem), Universitets-forlaget, Oslo, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Stansifer, R.: Presburger's article on integer arithmetic: Remarks and translation, Technical Report TR 84-639, Department of Computer Science, Cornell University, 1984.

  46. Tinelli, C. and Harandi, M.: A new correctness proof of the Nelson—Oppen combination procedure, in F. Baader and K. U. Schultz (eds.), Frontiers of Combining Systems: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop, 1996, pp. 103–120.

  47. Zhang, H.: Contextual rewriting in automated reasoning, Fund. Inform. 24 (1995), 107–123.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Zhang, H. and Kapur, D.: First-order theorem proving using conditional rewrite rules, in E. Lusk and R. Overbeek (eds.), Proceedings of 9th Conference on Automated Deduction, 1985, pp. 1–20.

  49. Zhang, H. and Rémy, J. L.: Contextual rewriting, in J. P. Jouannaud (ed.), Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications, 1985, pp. 1–20.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Mathematics, University of Belgrade, Studentski trg 16, 11000, Belgrade, Yugoslavia. e-mail

    Predrag Janičić

  2. Division of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, 80 South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH1 1HN, Scotland. e-mail

    Alan Bundy

Authors
  1. Predrag Janičić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alan Bundy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Janičić, P., Bundy, A. A General Setting for Flexibly Combining and Augmenting Decision Procedures. Journal of Automated Reasoning 28, 257–305 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015707001763

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015707001763

Search

Navigation