This report provides a detailed description of the TPTP Problem Library for automated theorem proving systems. The library is available via Internet, and forms a common basis for development of and experimentation with automated theorem provers. This report provides: ffl the motivations for building the library; ffl a discussion of the inadequacies of previous problem collections, and how these have been resolved in the TPTP; ffl a description of the library structure, including overview information; ffl descriptions of supplementary utility programs; ffl guidelines for obtaining and using the library; Contents 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Previous Problem Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 What is Required? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 Inside the TPTP 6 2.1 The TPTP Domain Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

Deduction-based software component retrieval uses preand postconditions as indexes and search keys and an automated theorem prover (ATP) to check whether a component matches. This idea is very simple but the vast number of arising proof tasks makes a practical implementation very hard. We thus pass the components through a chain of filters of increasing deductive power. In this chain, rejection filters based on signature matching and model checking techniques are used to rule out non-matches as early as possible and to prevent the subsequent ATP from "drowning." Hence, intermediate results of reasonable precision are available at (almost) any time of the retrieval process. The final ATP step then works as a confirmation filter to lift the precision of the answer set. We implemented a chain which runs fully automatically and uses MACE for model checking and the automated prover SETHEO as confirmation filter. We evaluated the system over a medium-sized collection of components. The resul...

Machine code ((Schellhorn and Ahrendt, 1997) and Chapter III.2.6). We use it as a reference or benchmark. Parts of it are repeated every now and then to evaluate the success of our integration concepts, see Section 7. In realistic applications in software verification, proof attempts are more likely to fail than to go through. This is because specifications, programs, I_3_16-mod_a.tex; 9/03/1998; 13:09; p.2 INTEGRATED THEOREM PROVING 549 or user-defined lemmas typically are erroneous. Correct versions usually are only obtained after a number of corrections and failed proof attempts. Therefore, the question is not only how to produce powerful theorem provers but also how to integrate proving and error correction. Current research on this and related topics is discussed in Section 8. There are different approaches of combining interactive methods with automated ones. Their relation to our approach is the subject of Section 9. Finally, in Section 10 we draw conclusions. 2. IDENTIFYING ...

Abstract not found

We present modifications of model elimination which do not necessitate the use of contrapositives. These restart model elimination calculi are proven sound and complete. The corresponding proof procedures are evaluated by a number of runtime experiments and they are compared to other well known provers. Finally we relate our results to other calculi, namely the connection method, modified problem reduction format and Near-Horn Prolog.

In this paper, we present a multi-layered architecture for spatial and temporal agents. The focus is laid on the declarativity of the approach, which makes agent scripts expressive and well understandable. They can be realized as (constraint) logic programs. The logical description language is able to express actions or plans for one and more autonomous and cooperating agents for the RoboCup (Simulator League). The system architecture hosts constraint technology for qualitative spatial reasoning, but quantitative data is taken into account, too. The basic (hardware) layer processes the agent's sensor information. An interface transfers this low-level data into a logical representation. It provides facilities to access the preprocessed data and supplies several basic skills. The second layer performs (qualitative) spatial reasoning. On top of this, the third layer enables more complex skills such as passing, offside-detection etc. At last, the fourth layer establishes acting as a team both by emergent and explicit cooperation. Logic and deduction provide a clean means to specify and also to implement teamwork behavior.

We demonstrate that theorem provers using model elimination (ME) can be used as answer complete interpreters for disjunctive logic programming. More specifically, we introduce a mechanism for computing answers into the restart variant of ME. Building on this, we develop a new calculus called ancestry restart ME. This variant admits a more restrictive regularity restriction than restart ME, and, as a side effect, it is in particular attractive for computing definite answers. The presented calculi can also be used successfully in the context of automated theorem proving. We demonstrate experimentally that it is more difficult to compute (non-trivial) answers to goals, instead of only proving the existence of answers.

Abstract. We refine Brand’s method for eliminating equality axioms by (i) imposing ordering constraints on auxiliary variables introduced during the transformation process and (ii) avoiding certain transformations of positive equations with a variable on one side. The refinements are both of theoretical and practical interest. For instance, the second refinement is implemented in Setheo and appears to be critical for that prover’s performance on equational problems. The correctness of this variant of Brand’s method was an open problem that is solved by the more general results in the present paper. The experimental results we obtained from a prototype implementation of our proposed method also show some dramatic improvements of the proof search in model elimination theorem proving. We prove the correctness of our refinements of Brand’s method by establishing a suitable connection to basic paramodulation calculi and thereby shed new light on the connection between different approaches to equational theorem proving. 1

We demonstrate that theorem provers using model elimination (ME) can be used as answer-complete interpreters for disjunctive logic programming. More specifically, we introduce a mechanism for computing answers into the restart variant of ME. Building on this we develop a new calculus called ancestry restart ME. This variant admits a more restrictive regularity restriction than restart ME, and, as a side effect, it is in particular attractive for computing definite answers. The presented calculi can also be used successfully in the context of automated theorem proving. We demonstrate experimentally that it is more difficult to compute (non-trivial) answers to goals, instead of only proving the existence of answers. Keywords. Automated reasoning; theorem proving; model elimination; logic programming; computing answers. In first order automatic theorem proving one is interested in the question whether a given formula follows logically from a set of axioms. This is a rather artificial t...

Automated theorem proving has made great progress during the last few decades. Proofs of more and more difficult theorems are being found faster and faster. However, the exponential increase in the size of the search space remains for many theorem proving problems. Logic program analysis and transformation techniques have also made progress during the last few years and automated theorem proving can benefit from these techniques if they can be made applicable to general theorem proving problems. In this thesis we investigate the applicability of logic program analysis and transformation techniques to automated theorem proving. Our aim is to speed up theorem provers by avoiding useless search. This is done by detecting and deleting parts of the theorem prover and theory under consideration that are not needed for proving a given formula. The analysis and transformation techniques developed for logic programs can be applied in automated theorem proving via a programming technique called ...