O. L. Astrachan and D. W. Loveland. The use of lemmas in the model elimination procedure. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 19:117--141, 1997. Home/Search Document Details and Download
Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
Similarity-Based Lemma Generation with Lemma-Delaying Tableaux.. - Fuchs (1997) (Correct)
....on, we want to consider only unit lemmas because of their ability to close open branches and not to simultaneously introduce new open subgoals. There are a lot of possibilities of how to generate lemmas. On the one hand lemmas can be generated dynamically during the proof run (cf. AS92, Iwa97, AL97] On the other hand lemmas can be generated statically in a preprocessing phase (cf. Sch94] We want to concentrate on static lemma use in the following. In this approach in a preprocessing phase the bottom part of a search space T BU , which is defined by a clause set C, a completeness ....
O.L. Astrachan and D.W. Loveland. The use of Lemmas in the Model Elimination Procedure. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 19(1):117-- 141, 1997.
Controlled Use of Clausal Lemmas in Connection Tableau Calculi - Fuchs (1998) (2 citations) (Correct)
....(applicability test) Thus, new unification attempts have to be performed. 3.2 Lemma Generation Techniques Basically, lemmas can be generated dynamically during a proof run or statically in a preprocessing phase. A dynamic generation of lemmas, as performed with unit clauses in [AS92, Iwa97, AL97] allows for the generation of lemmas during the proof run. After each successful solution of a subgoal a lemma can possibly be generated and added to the input clauses. The aim of this kind of lemma generation is to produce lemmas that are able to reduce the search amount by eliminating repeated ....
....can be discarded. This remains a quite uncontrolled method, however, since no estimation of the usefulness of the lemma is performed and an uncontrolled reordering of the search space can take place (new solutions of subgoals may be introduced in a finite segment of the search tree) In [AS92, AL97] lemma selection techniques are used that do not consider the actual proof task and judge the relevancy of a lemma based on its syntactical structure. In contrast to these methods the principle of our method is to generate a set of lemmas L in a preprocessing phase (as introduced in [Sch94] and ....
[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]
O.L. Astrachan and D.W. Loveland. The Use of Lemmas in the Model Elimination Procedure. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 19(1):117--141, 1997.
Cooperation between Top-Down and Bottom-Up Theorem Provers by.. - Fuchs (1998) (1 citation) (Correct)
....for top down provers are lemmas deduced by bottom up provers. These lemmas are added to the input of a top down prover and can help to shorten the proof length by immediately solving subgoals. Since the arising problem to filter relevant lemmas has already been discussed (see, e.g. AS92] AL97] Fuc97] we are not going to deal with this aspect here. Instead, we want to consider top down bottom up integration by transferring information from a top down prover to a bottom up prover. By transferring top down generated subgoal clauses we are able to introduce a goal oriented component ....
O.L. Astrachan and D.W. Loveland. The use of Lemmas in the Model Elimination Procedure. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 19(1):117--141, 1997.
Persistent and Quasi-Persistent Lemmas - In Propositional Model (Correct)
No context found.
O. L. Astrachan and D. W. Loveland. The use of lemmas in the model elimination procedure. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 19:117--141, 1997.
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC