Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

Complexity of translations from resolution to sequent calculus

  • GISELLE REIS (a1) and BRUNO WOLTZENLOGEL PALEO (a1)

Abstract

Resolution and sequent calculus are two well-known formal proof systems. Their differences make them suitable for distinct tasks. Resolution and its variants are very efficient for automated reasoning and are in fact the theoretical basis of many theorem provers. However, being intentionally machine oriented, the resolution calculus is not as natural for human beings and the input problem needs to be pre-processed to clause normal form. Sequent calculus, on the other hand, is a modular formalism that is useful for analysing meta-properties of various logics and is, therefore, popular among proof theorists. The input problem does not need to be pre-processed, and proofs are more detailed. However, proofs also tend to be larger and more verbose. When the worlds of proof theory and automated theorem proving meet, translations between resolution and sequent calculus are often necessary. In this paper, we compare three translation methods and analyse their complexity.

Copyright

References

Hide All
Baaz, M. and Leitsch, A. (2011). Methods of Cut-Elimination, Trends in Logic, Springer.
Ben-Sasson, E. and Wigderson, A. (2001). Short proofs are narrow – resolution made simple. Journal of ACM 48 (2) 149169.
Benzmüller, C., Sultana, N., Paulson, L.C. and Theiß, F. (2015). The higher-order prover Leo-II. Journal of Automated Reasoning 55 (4) 389404.
Bouton, T., de Oliveira, D.C.B., Déharbe, D. and Fontaine, P. (2009). veriT: An open, trustable and efficient SMT-solver. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Automated Deduction, Springer-Verlag, 151–156.
Chihani, Z., Miller, D. and Renaud, F. (2017). A semantic framework for proof evidence. Journal of Automated Reasoning 59 (3) 287330.
Cook, S. and Reckhow, R. (1974). On the lengths of proofs in the propositional calculus (preliminary version). In: Proceedings of the 6th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, ACM, 135–148.
Degtyarev, A. and Voronkov, A. (2001). The inverse method. In: Robinson, J. A. and Voronkov, A. (eds.) Handbook of Automated Reasoning, Elsevier and MIT Press, 179272.
Dunchev, T., Leitsch, A., Libal, T., Weller, D. and Woltzenlogel Paleo, B. (2010). System description: The proof transformation system CERES. In: Giesl, J. and Hähnle, R. (eds.) Automated Reasoning, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 427433.
Ebner, G., Hetzl, S., Reis, G., Riener, M., Wolfsteiner, S. and Zivota, S. (2016). System description: GAPT 2.0. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning, vol. 9706, Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc., New York, NY, USA, 293–301.
Gentzen, G. (1969). Investigations into logical deductions. In: Szabo, M. E. (ed.) The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 68131.
Hermant, O. (2010). Resolution is cut-free. Journal of Automated Reasoning 44 (3) 245276.
Hetzl, S., Leitsch, A., Reis, G. and Weller, D. (2014). Algorithmic introduction of quantified cuts. Theoretical Computer Science 549, 116.
Hetzl, S., Leitsch, A., Weller, D. and Woltzenlogel Paleo, B. (2008). Herbrand sequent extraction. In: Proceedings of the 9th AISC International Conference, 15th Calculemas Symposium, and 7th International MKM Conference on Intelligent Computer Mathematics 462–477.
Hetzl, S., Libal, T., Riener, M. and Rukhaia, M. (2013). Understanding resolution proofs through Herbrand's theorem. In: Proceedings of the Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods: 22nd International Conference, TABLEAUX 2013, Springer, 157–171.
Itegulov, D., Slaney, J. and Woltzenlogel Paleo, B. (2017). Scavenger 0.1: A theorem prover based on conflict resolution. In: de Moura, L. (ed.) Automated Deduction – CADE 26, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 344356.
Korovin, K. (2008). iProver – An instantiation-based theorem prover for first-order logic (system description). In: Armando, A., Baumgartner, P. and Dowek, G. (eds.) Automated Reasoning, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 292298.
Kovács, L. and Voronkov, A. (2013). First-order theorem proving and vampire, In: Sharygina, N. and Veith, H. (eds.) Computer Aided Verification, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 135.
Maslov, S.J. (1964). An Inverse Method of Establishing Deducibilities in the Classical Predicate Calculus, Reprinted in Siekmann, Wrightson: Automation of reasoning 1: classical papers on computational logic 1957–1966, 1983, pp. 17–20.
McCune, W. (2005–2010). Prover9 and Mace4. Available at: http://www.cs.unm.edu/mccune/prover9/.
Miller, D. (2013). Foundational proof certificates: Making proof universal and permanent. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGPLAN International Workshop on Logical Frameworks & Meta-languages: Theory & Practice 1–2.
Miller, D. (2017a). Expansion proofs. In: Woltzenlogel Paleo, B. (ed.) Towards an Encyclopaedia of Proof Systems, 1st edn., College Publications, London, UK, 18.
Miller, D. (2017b). Focused LK. In: Woltzenlogel Paleo, B. (ed.) Towards an Encyclopaedia of Proof Systems, 1st edn., College Publications, London, UK, 7576.
Mints, G. (1990). Gentzen-type systems and resolution rules part I propositional logic, In: Martin-Löf, P. and Mints, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Logic Tallinn, USSR, December 12–16, 1988, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 198–231.
Mints, G. (1993). Gentzen-type systems and resolution rule, part II: Predicate logic, In: Oikkonen, J. and Väänänen, J. (eds.) Proceedings of ASL Summer Meeting, Logic Colloquium, Helsinki, Finland, 15–22 July 1990, Lecture Notes in Logic, vol. 2, Springer-Verlag, 163–190.
Orevkov, V.P. (1982). Lower bounds for increasing complexity of derivations after cut elimination. Journal of Mathematical Sciences 20 (4) 23372350.
Reis, G. (2015). Importing SMT and Connection proofs as expansion trees, In: Proceedings 4th Workshop Proof eXchange for Theorem Proving, 3–10.
Robinson, J.A. (1965). A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle. Journal of the ACM 12 (1) 2341.
Schulz, S. (2013). System description: E 1.8, In: McMillan, K., Middeldorp, A. and Voronkov, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 19th Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8312, Springer, 735–743.
Statman, R. (1979). Lower bounds on Herbrand's theorem. In: Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 104–107.
Urquhart, A. (1995). The complexity of propositional proofs. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 1 (4) 425467.
Weidenbach, C., Dimova, D., Fietzke, A., Kumar, R., Suda, M. and Wischnewski, P. (2009). SPASS version 3.5, In: Schmidt, R. A. (ed.) Automated Deduction – CADE-22, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 140145.
Woltzenlogel Paleo, B. (2008). Herbrand Sequent Extraction, M.Sc. Thesis, VDM-Verlag, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Woltzenlogel Paleo, B. (2010). Atomic cut introduction by resolution: Proof structuring and compression. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning, Revised Selected Papers, 463–480.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Mathematical Structures in Computer Science
  • ISSN: 0960-1295
  • EISSN: 1469-8072
  • URL: /core/journals/mathematical-structures-in-computer-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed