Privacy Policy  |  About Peer Evaluation  |  Terms
Reading PAGE

Peer Evaluation activity

Trusted by 1
Views 17
View details

Total impact ?

    Invite this peer to...

    Send a

    Send

    Bruce has...

    Trusted 0
    Reviewed 0
    Emailed 0
    Shared/re-used 0
    Discussed 0
    Invited 0
    Collected 0
    View details

     

    This was brought to you by:

    block this user Bruce Spencer Trusted member

    Senior Research Associate

    National Research Council

    Avoiding Duplicate Proofs with the Foothold Refinement

    Export to Mendeley

    Wos has identified the problem of recomputing redundant information in the general setting of automated reasoning. We consider this problem in the setting of logic programming where we are given a formula and a goal and asked to find the instances of the goal that follow from the formula. We can use a proof procedure to find the result. The procedure exhibits redundancy when it finds two results such that one either duplicates or is more specific than the other. We introduce the foothold format, a refinement of linear resolution that admits fewer duplicate proofs than Loveland's popular MESON format. The duplicates arise when reasoning by cases. It leads to proof procedures that compute fewer duplicate substitutions. In some of our examples all duplication is eliminated. The foothold refinement depends on a simple condition that can be checked quickly, and can detect redundancy before the proof is completely generated. This is important from a practical point of view, since the earlier...

    Oh la laClose

    Your session has expired but don’t worry, your message
    has been saved.Please log in and we’ll bring you back
    to this page. You’ll just need to click “Send”.

    Your evaluation is of great value to our authors and readers. Many thanks for your time.

    Review Close

    Short review
    Select a comment
    Select a grade
    You and the author
    Anonymity My review is anonymous( Log in  or  Register )
    publish
    Full review
    Display full review
    Close

    When you're done, click "publish"

    Only blue fields are mandatory.

    Relation to the author*
    Overall Comment*
    Anonymity* My review is anonymous( Log in  or  Register )
     

    Focus & Objectives*

    Have the objectives and the central topic been clearly introduced?

    Novelty & Originality*

    Do you consider this work to be an interesting contribution to knowledge?

    Arrangement, Transition and Logic

    Are the different sections of this work well arranged and distributed?

    Methodology & Results

    Is the author's methodology relevant to both the objectives and the results?

    Data Settings & Figures

    Were tables and figures appropriate and well conceived?

    References and bibliography

    Is this work well documented and has the bibliography been properly established?

    Writing

    Is this work well written, checked and edited?

    Write Your Review (you can paste text as well)
    Please be civil and constructive. Thank you.


    Grade (optional, N/A by default)

    publish
    Cancel
    N/A 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
    Close

    Your mailing list is currently empty.
    It will build up as you send messages
    and links to your peers.

     No one besides you has access to this list.
    Close
    Enter the e-mail addresses of your recipients in the box below.  Note: Peer Evaluation will NOT store these email addresses   log in
    Your recipients

    Your message:

    Your email : Your email address will not be stored or shared with others.

    Your message has been sent.

    Description

    New Full text for this article was not available? Send a request to the author(s).
    Title : Avoiding Duplicate Proofs with the Foothold Refinement
    Abstract : Wos has identified the problem of recomputing redundant information in the general setting of automated reasoning. We consider this problem in the setting of logic programming where we are given a formula and a goal and asked to find the instances of the goal that follow from the formula. We can use a proof procedure to find the result. The procedure exhibits redundancy when it finds two results such that one either duplicates or is more specific than the other. We introduce the foothold format, a refinement of linear resolution that admits fewer duplicate proofs than Loveland's popular MESON format. The duplicates arise when reasoning by cases. It leads to proof procedures that compute fewer duplicate substitutions. In some of our examples all duplication is eliminated. The foothold refinement depends on a simple condition that can be checked quickly, and can detect redundancy before the proof is completely generated. This is important from a practical point of view, since the earlier...
    Subject : unspecified
    Area : Computer Science
    Language : English
    Affiliations : 
    Url : http://www.cs.unb.ca/research-groups/argroup/ps/annals.ps.gz
    Doi : 10.1.1.26.4655

    Leave a comment

    This contribution has not been reviewed yet. review?

    You may receive the Trusted member label after :

    • Reviewing 10 uploads, whatever the media type.
    • Being trusted by 10 peers.
    • If you are blocked by 10 peers the "Trust label" will be suspended from your page. We encourage you to contact the administrator to contest the suspension.

    Does this seem fair to you? Please make your suggestions.

    Please select an affiliation to sign your evaluation:

    Cancel Evaluation Save

    Please select an affiliation:

    Cancel   Save

    Bruce's Peer Evaluation activity

    Bruce has...

    Trusted 0
    Reviewed 0
    Emailed 0
    Shared/re-used 0
    Discussed 0
    Invited 0
    Collected 0
    Invite this peer to...
    Title
    Start date (dd/mm/aaaa)
    Location
    URL
    Message
    send
    Close

    Full Text request

    Your request will be sent.

    Please enter your email address to be notified
    when this article becomes available

    Your email


     
    Your email address will not be shared or spammed.