Citations: METEOR: Exploring Model Elimination Theorem Proving

15 citations found. Retrieving documents...

Owen Astrachan. METEOR: Exploring model elimination theorem proving. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 13(3):283--296, 1994.

Home/Search Document Details and Download Summary Related Articles Check

This paper is cited in the following contexts:

Discoveries and Experiments in the Automation of Mathematical.. - Shults (2002) (Correct)

....languages are more convenient for expressing mathematical facts, the reasoning in higherorder languages is much less tractable. Many theorem proving programs use tableaux and related methods. PROTEIN [14] 3 T A P [19] lean T A P [16] SETHEO [82] MGTP and it variants [66, 65] METEOR [6], Parthenon [35] and PTTP [115] are some of the better known systems. Most existing systems and calculi use clausal form for storing the theory. Some save some space by breaking a formula only to negation normal form [63] This form still has the disadvantages associated with Skolem constants. ....

....68] In this calculus, only the formulas themselves are entered. No indexing or additional information is provided. The e rule is closely related to various strategies used in clausal tableaux [81] The e rule is distinct from existing rules for clausal tableau expansion in various ways. METEOR [6], Parthenon [35] PTTP [115] SETHEO [82] and PROTEIN [14] use calculi closely related to model elimination. Therefore, they obey the connection condition. In a clausal context, the e rule only uses the weak connection condition (set of support) as in Hhnle s ordered tableaux [64] The system 3 ....

Owen Astrachan. METEOR: Exploring model elimination theorem proving. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 13(3):283--296, 1994.

Semantically Guided Proof Planning - Choi (Correct)

.... Use hyper linking to generate new instances of clauses in S More generated Ground the instance set Apply PC prover to the grounded instance set Unsatisfiable Satisfiable Found a proof for A j= T No more A 6j= T Figure 3. 7: The Hyper Linking Procedure [Chu94] Ast92] Ast94] The relevant works mentioned above are to be reviewed in the near future. We are also to investigate an extension to the approach presented in [BF94a] and [BF94b] 3.5 Semantics in Automated Theorem proving As we have investigated in chapter 2, semantics in the form of models is the meaning ....

Owen L. Astrachan. METEOR: Exploring Model Elimination Theorem Proving. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 13(2):283--296, 1994.

Discoveries and Experiments in the Automation of Mathematical.. - Shults (1997) (Correct)

....languages are more convenient for expressing mathematical facts, the reasoning in higher order languages is much less tractable. Many theorem proving programs use tableaux and related methods. PROTEIN [14] 3 T A P [19] lean T A P [16] SETHEO [82] MGTP and it variants [66, 65] METEOR [6], Parthenon [35] and PTTP [115] are some of the better known systems. Most existing systems and calculi use clausal form for storing the theory. Some save some space by breaking a formula only to negation normal form [63] This form still has the disadvantages associated with Skolem constants. ....

....68] In this calculus, only the formulas themselves are entered. No indexing or additional information is provided. The rule is closely related to various strategies used in clausal tableaux [81] The rule is distinct from existing rules for clausal tableau expansion in various ways. METEOR [6], Parthenon [35] PTTP [115] SETHEO [82] and PROTEIN [14] use calculi closely related to model elimination. Therefore, they obey the connection condition. In a clausal context, the rule only uses the weak connection condition (set of support) as in Hahnle s ordered 147 tableaux [64] The ....

Owen Astrachan. METEOR: Exploring model elimination theorem proving. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 13(3):283--296, 1994.

ATP System Results for the TPTP Problem Library - Geoff Sutcliffe, Christian.. (1996) (2 citations) (Correct)

....original presentation is hand tailored towards a particular automated proof. ffl Arbitrary size instances of generic problems (e.g. the pigeon holes problem [CR79] ffl A utility to convert the problems to existing ATP formats. Currently the KIF [GF92] 3TAP [HBG94] leanTAP [BP95] METEOR [Ast92], MGTP [FHKF92] Otter [McC94] PTTP [Sti84] SETHEO [STvdK90] SPASS [WGRar] and SPRFN [Pla88] formats are supported, and the utility can easily be extended to produce any format required. ffl General guidelines outlining the requirements for ATP system evaluation. The TPTP is managed in the ....

O.L. Astrachan. METEOR: Exploring Model Elimination Theorem Proving. Technical Report CS-1992-22, Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, USA, 1992.

The TPTP Problem Library - Christian B. Suttner, Geoff Sutcliffe (1996) (88 citations) (Correct)

....: Specifies the format in which the output is to be written. The available output formats are: kif, to convert to the KIF format [GF92] leantap, to convert to the leanTAP format [BP95] tap, to convert to the 3TAP format [HBG94] meteor, to convert to the METEOR format [Ast92] mgtp, to convert to the MGTP format [FHKF92] otter: SoS : Otter options , to convert to the Otter .in format [McC94] SoS specifies the Set of Support to use. It can be one of: conjecture, to use the clauses whose type is conjecture, hypothesis, to use the clauses whose type ....

O. Astrachan. METEOR: Exploring Model Elimination Theorem Proving. Technical Report CS-1992-22, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA, 1992. Ph.D. Thesis.

The TPTP Problem Library - Christian B. Suttner, Geoff Sutcliffe (1997) (88 citations) (Correct)

.... CNF problems to the ILF format [DGH 95] kif, to convert CNF problems to the KIF format [GF92] leantap, to convert CNF problems to the leanTAP format [BP95] tap, to convert CNF problems to the 3TAP format [HBG94] meteor, to convert CNF problems to the METEOR format [Ast94] mgtp, to convert CNF problems to the MGTP format [FHKF92] oscar, to convert FOF problems to the OSCAR format [Pol90] otter: SoS : Otter options , to convert FOF and CNF problems to the Otter .in format [McC94] SoS specifies the Set of Support to use. It can be one of: ....

O.L. Astrachan. METEOR: Exploring Model Elimination Theorem Proving. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 13(3):283--296, 1994.

The TPTP Problem Library - Christian B. Suttner, Geoff Sutcliffe (1995) (88 citations) (Correct)

....: Specifies the format in which the output is to be written. The available output formats are: kif, to convert to the KIF format [GF92] leantap, to convert to the leanTAP format [BP95] tap, to convert to the 3TAP format [HBG94] meteor, to convert to the METEOR format [Ast92] mgtp, to convert to the MGTP format [FHKF92] otter: SoS : OTTER options , to convert to the OTTER .in format [McC94] SoS specifies the Set of Support to use. It can be one of: theorem, to use the clauses whose type is theorem, hypothesis, to use the clauses whose type is ....

O. Astrachan. METEOR: Exploring Model Elimination Theorem Proving. Technical Report CS-1992-22, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA, 1992. Ph.D. Thesis.

The TPTP Problem Library - Christian B. Suttner, Geoff Sutcliffe (1996) (88 citations) (Correct)

The Practice of Clausification in Automatic Theorem Proving - Geoff Sutcliffe, Stuart.. (1996) (Correct)

....in the clause. For example, the clause: word(X) defines(defn of(X) concept(X) g has a symbol count of 7. A lower symbol count indicates a better clause. Symbol count is used, at least in part, in the heuristic functions of several contemporary ATP systems, e.g. Gandalf [39] METEOR [1], Otter [19] SETHEO [14] SPASS [41] Vampire [40] Violet [8] Otter, SETHEO, and SPASS were the category winners of the CADE 13 ATP system competition [35] thus indicating that symbol count is a reasonable heuristic for measuring the quality of clauses, for contemporary state of the art ATP ....

....clausal subsumption, an atom P subsumes an atom Q if there is a substitution of terms for some of the variables of P such P (after the substitution) is the same as Q) The resolvant necessarily subsumes the second clause, which is then removed. Such resolution steps are desirable in ATP systems [33, 1] because they always improve the clause set (according to the symbol count heuristic) In simplification, if a subsuming unit resolution is possible, the resolvant replaces the second parent clause. 4.2 The tptp2X Simplifier As well as a clausifier, the tptp2X utility contains a simplifier that ....

O Astrachan. `METEOR: Exploring Model Elimination Theorem Proving'. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 13(3):283--296, (1994).

The TPTP Problem Library - Christian B. Suttner, Geoff Sutcliffe (1997) (88 citations) (Correct)

ATP System Results for the TPTP Problem Library - Geoff Sutcliffe, Christian.. (1995) (2 citations) (Correct)

....original presentation is hand tailored towards a particular automated proof. ffl Arbitrary size instances of generic problems (e.g. the pigeon holes problem [CR79] ffl A utility to convert the problems to existing ATP formats. Currently the KIF [GF92] 3TAP [HBG94] leanTAP [BP95] METEOR [Ast92], MGTP [FHKF92] Otter [McC94] PTTP [Sti84] SETHEO [STvdK90] and SPRFN [Pla88] formats are supported, and the utility can easily be extended to produce any format required. ffl General guidelines outlining the requirements for ATP system evaluation. The TPTP is managed in the manner of a ....

O.L. Astrachan. METEOR: Exploring Model Elimination Theorem Proving. Technical Report CS-1992-22, Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, USA, 1992.

The TPTP Problem Library - Geoff Sutcliffe, Christian Suttner (1994) (88 citations) (Correct)

....Utility The tptp2X utility is a multi functional utility for reformatting, transforming, and generating TPTP problem files. In particular, it: ffl Converts from the TPTP format to formats used by existing ATP systems. The system formats available are KIF [31] leanTAP [8] 3TAP [33] METEOR [6], MGTP [29] Otter [66] PTTP [105] SETHEO [93] SPASS [120, 119] SPRFN [81] and TPTP (substituting include instructions with the actual clauses) ffl Applies various transformations to the clauses of TPTP problems. The transformations available are to reverse the order of the literals or ....

O.L. Astrachan. METEOR: Exploring Model Elimination Theorem Proving. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 13(3):283--296, 1994.

The TPTP Problem Library - Christian B. Suttner, Geoff Sutcliffe (1999) (88 citations) (Correct)

The Use of Lemmas in the Model Elimination Procedure - Astrachan, Loveland (1997) (5 citations) Self-citation (Astrachan) (Correct)

....simultaneously three groups took this one step further, building on the architecture (the Warren Abstract Machine (WAM) developed for Prolog that the logic programming community had extended to parallel machines. These projects were PARTHENON (CMU) 9] PARTHEO (Munich) 23] and METEOR (Duke) [4, 3]. The Munich [16] and Duke efforts included sequential provers also. The work reported here has been implemented on one of the METEOR family of ME provers. What has changed in 20 years that makes the lessons of the Fleisig et al. paper invalid in part A fair number of things: maybe most ....

....been solved in (strong) fully automated mode by the Semantic Hyper Linking prover of [11] To our knowledge no other prover has succeeded on this problem in non interactive mode. Because the purpose of this paper is to look in depth at the nature of lemma use, and because other papers [5, 3], contain results of METEOR on standard problems of the Automated Theorem proving (ATP) community, we omit such listings here. For example, the Astrachan and Stickel paper [5] discussing caching in ME includes two tables of results and a brief discussion on lemma use. Caching is not applicable ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

O.L. Astrachan. METEOR: Exploring model elimination theorem proving. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 13(2):283--296, 1994.

The Use of Lemmas in the Model Elimination Procedure - Astrachan And (1997) (5 citations) Self-citation (Astrachan) (Correct)