Since the seminal work of J. A. Robinson on resolution, many lifting lemmas for simplifying proofs of completeness of resolution have been proposed in the literature. In the logic programming framework, they may also help to detect some infinite derivations while proving goals under the SLD-resolution. In this paper, we first generalize a version of the lifting lemma, by extending the relation "is more general than" so that it takes into account only some arguments of the atoms. The other arguments, which we call neutral arguments, are disregarded. Then we propose two syntactic conditions of increasing power for identifying neutral arguments from mere inspection of the text of a logic program.
EVA-check (for Extented Variant Atoms loop check) was introduced by Shen @cite_13 . It is based on the notion of . EVA-check says that an SLD-derivation may be infinite if it generates an atomic subgoal @math that is a generalized variant of some of its ancestor @math , @math is a variant of @math except for some arguments whose size increases from @math to @math via a set of recursive clauses. Here the size function that is used applies to predicate arguments, to terms, and it is fixed: it is defined as the the count of symbols that appear in the terms. EVA-check is more reliable than OS-check because it is less likely to mis-identify infinite loops @cite_13 . This is mainly due to the fact that, unlike OS-check, EVA-check refers to the informative internal structure of subgoals.
@cite_13
1975546131 1981314990 1549166962 190622319
The Equality check and the Subsumption check are weakly sound, but are not complete even for function-free logic programs. Although the OverSize (OS) check is complete for positive logic programs, it is too general in the sense that it prunes SLD-derivations merely based on the depth-bound of repeated predicate symbols and the size of atoms, regardless of the inner structure of the atoms, so it may make wrong conclusions even for some simple programs. In this paper, we explore complete loop checking mechanisms for positive logic programs. We develop an extended Variant of Atoms (VA) check that has the following features: (1) it generalizes the concept of “variant” from “the same up to variable renaming” to “the same up to variable renaming except possibly with some arguments whose size recursively increases”, (2) it makes use of the depth-bound of repeated variants of atoms instead of depth-bound of repeated predicate symbols, (3) it combines the Equality Subsumption check with the VA check, (4) it is complete w. r. t. the leftmost selection rule for positive logic programs, and (5) it is more sound than both the OS check and all the existing versions of the VA check. Two complete loop checking mechanisms have been presented in the literature for logic programs with functions: OS-check and EVA-check. OS-check is computationally efficient but quite unreliable in that it often misidentifies infinite loops, whereas EVA-check is reliable for a majority of cases but quite expensive. In this paper, we develop a series of new complete loop checking mechanisms, called VAF-checks. The key technique we introduce is the notion of expanded variants, which captures a key structural characteristic of in finite loops. We show that our approach is superior to both OS-check and EVA-check in that it is as efficient as OS-check and as reliable as EVA-check. Copyright 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. A new form of SAT-based symbolic model checking is described. Instead of unrolling the transition relation, it incrementally generates clauses that are inductive relative to (and augment) stepwise approximate reachability information. In this way, the algorithm gradually refines the property, eventually producing either an inductive strengthening of the property or a counterexample trace. Our experimental studies show that induction is a powerful tool for generalizing the unreachability of given error states: it can refine away many states at once, and it is effective at focusing the proof search on aspects of the transition system relevant to the property. Furthermore, the incremental structure of the algorithm lends itself to a parallel implementation. Abstract We propose an extension of the SLDNF proof procedure for checking integrity constraints in deductive databases. To achieve the effect of the simplification methods investigated by Nicolas [1982], Lloyd, Sonenberg, and Topor [1986], and Decker [1986], we use clauses corresponding to the updates as top clauses for the search space. This builds in the assumption that the database satisfied its integrity constraints prior to the transaction, and that, therefore, any violation of the constraints in the updated database must involve at least one of the updates in the transaction. Different simplification methods can be simulated by different strategies for literal selection and search. The SLDNF proof procedure needs to be extended to use as top clause any arbitrary deductive rule, denial, or negated fact, to incorporate inference rules for reasoning about implicit deletions resulting from other deletions and additions, and to allow an extended resolution step for reasoning forward from negated facts.