RDP                     
Home page
Organization
Sponsors

MEETINGS        
RTA
TLCA
FTP
WG1.6
RULE
UNIF
WFLP
WRS
WST

VENUE               
Valencia
Registration
Accomodation
Travelling
Program
Conference Venue
Internet
FTP'03
4th International Workshop on First order Theorem Proving
Valencia, Spain, June 12-14, 2003


ABSTRACTS OF REGULAR PAPERS ACCEPTED FOR PRESENTATION

    Quantifier Elimination and Provers Integration
    S. Ghilardi (Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy)

    We exploit quantifier elimination in the global design of combined decision and semi-decision procedures for theories over non-disjoint signatures, thus providing in particular extensions of Nelson-Oppen combination schema.

    A Decision Procedure for a Sublanguage of Set Theory Involving Monotone, Additive, and Multiplicative Functions
    D. Cantone (University of Catania, Italy)
    J.T. Schwartz (New York University, USA)
    C.G. Zarba (Stanford University, USA)

    MLSS is a decidable sublanguage of set theory involving the constructs membership, set equality, set inclusion, union, intersection, set difference, and singleton. In this paper we extend MLSS with constructs for expressing monotonicity, additivity, and multiplicativity properties of set-to-set functions. We prove that the resulting language is decidable by reducing the problem of determining the satisfiability of its sentences to the problem of determining the satisfiability of sentences of MLSS.

    Canonicity
    N. Dershowitz (Tel Aviv University, Israel)

    We explore how different proof orderings induce different notions of saturation. We relate completion, paramodulation, saturation, redundancy elimination, and rewrite system reduction to proof orderings.

    Transforming Equality Logic to Propositional Logic
    H. Zantema (Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands)
    J.F. Groote (Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands)

    We investigate and compare various ways of transforming equality formulas to propositional formulas, in order to be able to solve satisfiability in equality logic by means of satisfiability in propositional logic. We propose a new way combining two desirable properties of earlier methods.

    On Leaf Permutative Theories and Occurrence Permutation Groups
    T. Boy de la Tour (INPG, France)
    M. Echenim (INPG, France)

    Leaf permutative theories contain variable-permuting equations, so that rewriting a term may lead to an exponential number of terms which are only permutations of it. In [1] Avenhaus and Plaisted propose to represent such sets by stratified terms, and to deduce directly with these. Our aim is to use computational group theory to analyse the complexity of the corresponding problems, and hopefully devise better algorithms than [1]. In order to express stratified sets as orbits, we adopt a representation of terms based on occurrences, which can conveniently be permuted. An algorithm solving a basic equivalence problem is presented.

    Light-Weight Theorem Proving for Debugging and Verifying Pointer Manipulating Programs
    S. Ranise (LORIA - INRIA-Lorraine, France)
    D. Déharbe (UFRN - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil)

    We describe a combination of BDDs and superposition theorem proving, called light-weight theorem proving, and its application to the flexible and efficient automation of the reasoning activity required to debug and verify pointer manipulating programs.  This class of programs is notoriously challenging to reason about and it is also interesting from a programming point of view since pointers are an important source of bugs. The implementation of our technique (in a system called haRVey scales up significantly better than state-of-the-art tools such as E (a superposition prover) and Simplify (a prover based on the Nelson and Oppen combination of decision procedures and used in ESC/Java) on a set of proof obligations arising in debugging and verifying C functions manipulating pointers.

    Can Decision Procedures be Learnt Automatically?
    M. Jamnik (The University of Cambridge, England)
    P. Janicic (University of Belgrade, Yugoslavia)

    In this paper we present an investigation into whether and how can decision procedures be learnt automatically. Our approach consists of two stages. First, a refined brute-force search procedure applies exhaustively a set of given elementary methods to try to solve a corpus of conjectures generated by a stochastic context-free grammar. The successful proof traces are saved. In the second stage, a learning algorithm (by Jamnik et al.) tries to extract a required supermethod (i.e., decision procedure) from the given traces. In the paper, this technique is applied to elementary methods that encode the operations of the Fourier-Motzkin's decision procedure for Presburger arithmetic on rational numbers. The results of our experiment are encouraging.

    Manipulating Tree Tuple Languages by Transforming Logic Programs
    S. Limet (Universitté d'Orléans, France)
    G. Salzer (Technische Universität Wien, Austria)

    We introduce inductive definitions over language expressions as a framework for specifying tree tuple languages. Inductive definitions and their sub-classes correspond naturally to classes of logic programs, and operations on tree tuple languages correspond to the transformation of logic programs. We present an algorithm based on unfolding and definition introduction that is able to deal with several classes of tuple languages in a uniform way. Termination proofs for clause classes translate directly to closure properties of tuple languages, leading to new decidability and computability results for the latter.

    Combining Non-Stably Infinite Theories
    C. Tinelli (The University of Iowa, USA)
    C.G. Zarba (Stanford University, USA)

    The Nelson-Oppen combination method combines decision procedures for first-order theories over disjoint signatures into a single decision procedure for the union theory. To be correct, the method requires that the component theories be stably infinite. This restriction makes the method inapplicable to many interesting theories such as, for instance, theories having only finite models. In this paper we provide a new combination method that can combine any theory that is not stably infinite with another theory, provided that the latter is what we call a shiny theory. Examples of shiny theories include the theory of equality, the theory of partial orders, and the theory of total orders. An interesting consequence of our results is that any decision procedure for the satisfiability of quantifier-free Sigma-formulae in a Sigma-theory T can always be extended to accept inputs over an arbitrary signature Omega containing Sigma.

    Exact Algorithms for MAX-SAT
    H. Zhang (University of Iowa, USA)
    H. Shen (University of Iowa, USA)
    F. Manyà (Universitat de Lleida, Spain)

    The maximum satisfiability problem (MAX-SAT) is stated as follows: Given a Boolean formula in CNF, find a truth assignment that satisfies the maximum possible number of its clauses. MAX-SAT is MAX-SNP-complete and received much attention recently. One of the challenges posed by Alber, Gramm and Niedermeier in a recent survey paper asks: Can MAX-SAT be solved in less than $2^n$ ``steps''? Here, $n$ is the number of different variables in the formula and a step may take polynomial time of the input. We answered this challenge positively by showing that a popular algorithm based on branch-and-bound is bounded by $O(b2^n)$ in time, where $b$ is the maximum number of occurrences of any variable in the input. When the input formula is in 2-CNF, that is, each clause has at most two literals, MAX-SAT becomes MAX-2-SAT and the decision version of MAX-2-SAT is still NP-complete. The best bound of the known algorithms for MAX-2-SAT is $O(m2^{m/5})$, where $m$ is the number of clauses. We propose an efficient decision algorithm for MAX-2-SAT whose time complexity is bound by $O(n2^n)$. This result is substantially better than the previously known results. Experimental results also show that our algorithm outperforms any algorithm we know on MAX-2-SAT.

    Reachability in Conditional Term Rewriting Systems
    G. Feuillade (ENS Cachan / IRISA, France)
    T. Genet (IRISA / Université de Rennes 1, France)

    In this paper, we study the reachability problem for conditional term rewriting systems. Given two ground terms 's' and 't', our practical aim is to prove that s cannot be rewritten into t (in any number of steps) using a join conditional term rewriting system R (possibly not terminating and not confluent). The proof method we propose relies on an over approximation of reachable terms for join conditional term rewriting systems. This approximation is computed using an extension of the tree automata completion algorithm to the conditional case.

    A Resolution-based Model Building Algorithm for a Fragment of OCC1N=
    N. Peltier (CNRS - LEIBNITZ - IMAG, France)

    OCC1N is a decidable subclass of first-order clausal logic without equality. OCC1N becomes undecidable when equational literals are allowed, but remains decidable if equality is restricted to ground terms only. First, we extend this decidability result to some non ground equational literals. By carefully restricting the use of the equality predicate we obtain a new decidable class. We show that existing paramodulation calculi cannot terminate on the considered class and we define a new simplification rule which allows to ensure termination. Second, we show that the automatic extraction of Herbrand models is possible from satisfiable sets in the class. These models are represented by certain finite sets of (possibly equational and non ground) linear atoms. The difficult point here is to show that this formalism is suitable as a model representation mechanism, i.e. that the evaluation of arbitrary (non equational) first-order formulae in such interpretations is a decidable problem.


ABSTRACTS OF SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS

    MPTP 0.1 - System Description
    J. Urban (Charles University, Praha, Czech Republic)

    MPTP (Mizar Problems for Theorem Proving) is a system for translating the Mizar Mathematical Library (MML) into untyped first order format suitable for automated theorem provers, and for generating theorem proving problems corresponding to MML. The first version generates about 30000 problems from complete proofs of Mizar theorems, and about 630000 problems from the simple (one-step) justifications done by the Mizar checker. We describe the design and structure of the system, some limitations, and planned future extensions.

    VOTE: Group Editors Analyzing Tool
    A. Imine (LORIA - INRIA Lorraine, France)
    P. Molli (LORIA - Université Henri Poincaré, France)
    G. Oster (LORIA - INRIA Lorraine, France)
    P. Urso (Ecole Supérieure en Sciences Informatiques, France)

    We present an initial version of a tool VOTE for detecting copies inconsistency in group editors. As input our tool takes an algorithmic-description which consists of the group editor behaviour and the transformation algorithm. VOTE translates this description into rewrite rules. As a verification back-end we use SPIKE, an automated induction-based theorem prover, which is suitable for reasoning about conditional theories. The effectiveness of our tool is illustrated on several case studies.


ABSTRACTS OF POSITION PAPERS

    Dialogue Games for Modelling Proof Search in Non-classical Logics
    C. Fermüller (TU Wien, Austria)

    The purpose of this Position Statement is to suggest that dialogue games provide a uniform, versatile and elegant tool for the modelling of proof search based on analytic (tableau style) calculi for a wide range of non-classical logics. In doing so we built on a number of recent results that demonstrate that (parallel) Lorenzen style dialogue games provide elegant characterizations for many non-classical logics, in particular intermediate logics.

    Automatic Theorem Proving in Calculi with Cut
    E. Eder (University of Salzburg, Austria)

    In automated theorem proving, some proof calculi such as W. Bibel's connection method or E. Beth's and R. Smullyan's tableau calculus are based on backward reasoning in G. Gentzen's sequent calculus. For efficiency of search, these calculi must keep the search tree finitely branching, and therefore have to use the sequent calculus without the cut rule. Since the cut rule allows an immense reduction of the length of proof for some classes of formulas, it would be desirable, however, to use a calculus with cut such as the full sequent calculus or Frege-Hilbert calculi. The rules in such calculi have formula schemes as premises and conclusions. One way to avoid an infinitely branching search tree is to lift the idea of unification from terms to formula schemes. This idea allows to define an operation of composition of rules of the calculus. Since formula schemes do not admit a single most general unifier, only a partial unification can be made, and a condition has to be added to the resulting rule restricting its applicability and thus guaranteeing the equivalent of full unification. The goal of the present research is to obtain a better characterization and understanding of rules of such calculi and of their composition, in order to build automatic or interactive theorem provers for forward, backward, and bidirectional reasoning.

                                                                                                                                                                                                               
Last update May 2003 # sescobar@dsic.upv.es