Results 1  10
of
87
Satchmo  The Compiling and Functional Variants
 JOURNAL OF AUTOMATED REASONING
, 1997
"... Compiling Satchmo and Functional Satchmo are two variants of the model generator Satchmo, incorporating enhancements in different directions. Compiling Satchmo is based on the observation that Satchmo (like any model generator or theorem prover) can be seen as an interpreter for a program given as a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Compiling Satchmo and Functional Satchmo are two variants of the model generator Satchmo, incorporating enhancements in different directions. Compiling Satchmo is based on the observation that Satchmo (like any model generator or theorem prover) can be seen as an interpreter for a program given
Efficient Model Generation through Compilation
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 13TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON AUTOMATED DEDUCTION, NUMBER 1104 IN LECTURE NOTES IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
, 1997
"... We present a collection of simple but powerful techniques for enhancing the efficiency of tableaubased model generators such as Satchmo. The central ideas are to compile a clausal first order theory into a procedural Prolog program and to avoid redundant work of a naive implementation. We have comp ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present a collection of simple but powerful techniques for enhancing the efficiency of tableaubased model generators such as Satchmo. The central ideas are to compile a clausal first order theory into a procedural Prolog program and to avoid redundant work of a naive implementation. We have
A Survey of Research on Deductive Database Systems
 JOURNAL OF LOGIC PROGRAMMING
, 1993
"... The area of deductive databases has matured in recent years, and it now seems appropriate to re ect upon what has been achieved and what the future holds. In this paper, we provide an overview of the area and briefly describe a number of projects that have led to implemented systems. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 122 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The area of deductive databases has matured in recent years, and it now seems appropriate to re ect upon what has been achieved and what the future holds. In this paper, we provide an overview of the area and briefly describe a number of projects that have led to implemented systems.
Compilation of BottomUp Evaluation for a Pure Logic Programming Language
"... Abstraction in programming languages is usually achieved at the price of run time efficiency. This thesis presents a compilation scheme for the Starlog logic programming language. In spite of being very abstract, Starlog can be compiled to an efficient executable form. Starlog implements stratified ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstraction in programming languages is usually achieved at the price of run time efficiency. This thesis presents a compilation scheme for the Starlog logic programming language. In spite of being very abstract, Starlog can be compiled to an efficient executable form. Starlog implements stratified
From logic programming towards multiagent systems
 Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
, 1999
"... In this paper we present an extension of logic programming (LP) that is suitable not only for the "rational " component of a single agent but also for the "reactive " component and that can encompass multiagent systems. We modify an earlier abductive proof proced ..."
Abstract

Cited by 80 (25 self)
 Add to MetaCart
multitheories embedded in a shared environment, provide the necessary multiagent functionality. We argue also that our work extends Shoham's Agent0 and the BDI architecture.
leanTAP: Lean Tableaubased Deduction
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 1995
"... . "prove((E,F),A,B,C,D) : !, prove(E,[FA],B,C,D). prove((E;F),A,B,C,D) : !, prove(E,A,B,C,D), prove(F,A,B,C,D). prove(all(H,I),A,B,C,D) : !, "+length(C,D), copyterm((H,I,C),(G,F,C)), append(A,[all(H,I)],E), prove(F,E,B,[GC],D). prove(A,,[CD],,) : ((A= (B); (A)=B)) ? (unify ..."
Abstract

Cited by 81 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. "prove((E,F),A,B,C,D) : !, prove(E,[FA],B,C,D). prove((E;F),A,B,C,D) : !, prove(E,A,B,C,D), prove(F,A,B,C,D). prove(all(H,I),A,B,C,D) : !, "+length(C,D), copyterm((H,I,C),(G,F,C)), append(A,[all(H,I)],E), prove(F,E,B,[GC],D). prove(A,,[CD],,) : ((A= (B); (A)=B)) ? (unify(B,C); prove(A,[],D,,)). prove(A,[EF],B,C,D) : prove(E,F,[AB],C,D)." implements a firstorder theorem prover based on freevariable semantic tableaux. It is complete, sound, and efficient. 1 Introduction The Prolog program listed in the abstract implements a complete and sound theorem prover for firstorder logic; it is based on freevariable semantic tableaux (Fitting, 1990). We call this lean deduction: the idea is to achieve maximal efficiency from minimal means. We will see that the above program is indeed very efficientnot although but because it is extremely short and compact. Our approach surely does not lead to a deduction system which is superior to highly sophisticated systems li...
Logic and Databases: a 20 Year Retrospective
, 1996
"... . At a workshop held in Toulouse, France in 1977, Gallaire, Minker and Nicolas stated that logic and databases was a field in its own right (see [131]). This was the first time that this designation was made. The impetus for this started approximately twenty years ago in 1976 when I visited Gallaire ..."
Abstract

Cited by 58 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. At a workshop held in Toulouse, France in 1977, Gallaire, Minker and Nicolas stated that logic and databases was a field in its own right (see [131]). This was the first time that this designation was made. The impetus for this started approximately twenty years ago in 1976 when I visited Gallaire and Nicolas in Toulouse, France, which culminated in a workshop held in Toulouse, France in 1977. It is appropriate, then to provide an assessment as to what has been achieved in the twenty years since the field started as a distinct discipline. In this retrospective I shall review developments that have taken place in the field, assess the contributions that have been made, consider the status of implementations of deductive databases and discuss the future of work in this area. 1 Introduction As described in [234], the use of logic and deduction in databases started in the late 1960s. Prominent among the developments was the work by Levien and Maron [202, 203, 199, 200, 201] and Kuhns [1...
The Muse Approach to OrParallel Prolog
 International Journal of Parallel Programming
, 1994
"... Muse (Multisequential Prolog engines) is a simple and efficient approach to Orparallel execution of Prolog programs. It is based on having several sequential Prolog engines, each with its local address space, and some shared memory space. It is currently implemented on a 7processors machine with l ..."
Abstract

Cited by 33 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
with the other approaches. The speedup factor is very close to the number of processors in the system for a large class of problems. The goal of this paper is to present the Muse execution model, some of its implementation issues, a variant of Prolog suitable for multiprocessor implementations, and some
Blocking and other enhancements for bottomup model generation methods
 Third Int. Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR), Springer LNAI
, 2006
"... In this paper we introduce several new improvements to the bottomup model generation (BUMG) paradigm. Our techniques are based on nontrivial transformations of firstorder problems into a certain implicational form, namely rangerestricted clauses. These refine existing transformations to rangeres ..."
Abstract

Cited by 27 (15 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper we introduce several new improvements to the bottomup model generation (BUMG) paradigm. Our techniques are based on nontrivial transformations of firstorder problems into a certain implicational form, namely rangerestricted clauses. These refine existing transformations to rangerestricted form by extending the domain of interpretation with new Skolem terms in a more careful and deliberate way. Our transformations also extend BUMG with a blocking technique for detecting recurrence in models. Blocking is based on a conceptually rather simple encoding together with standard equality theorem proving and redundancy elimination techniques. This provides a generalpurpose method for finding small models. The presented techniques are implemented and have been successfully tested with existing theorem provers on the satisfiable problems from the TPTP library. 1
Results 1  10
of
87