34 Reiner Hahnlereservation and it can safely be claimed that any competitive propositional proofprocedure embodies some variant of cut. On the rst-order level, however, additionalliterals introduced as cuts or lemmas create additional possibilities for branch closure.The negative eects from this increase of the search space can easily outweighthe possibility of nding shorter proofs.Example 4.7. Let S = f:p(x)_q(x)_r(x); p(a); :q(a); p(b); :q(b); :r(b)g. In thepartial connection tableau in Figure 13 the left branch was closed rst by extensionwith p(a) (where only p(b) leads to success). This forces extension with q(a) in themiddle branch and generation of some lemmas (framed literals). The lemmas allowto extend the right branch with another instance of the rst clause which wouldhave been impossible without them. Detection of the wrong rst extension is thuspossibly delayed a long time.In the example, a regularity check would help (r(a) becomes irregular on therightmost branch) and also restriction of lemma usage to reduction steps. Althoughthis helps somewhat, more complex examples create the same problems as before.true:p(x)q(x)r(x)p(a)p(x)p(x)fx=ag:q(a)id:p(y)fy=xg:q(x)q(y)idr(y).Figure 13. Search space increase caused by local lemmas.On the other hand, local lemmas are not strong enough on the rst-order level.In the clause tableau in Figure 5, for example, the lemma :q(c) can be folded upto the true node, but is useless to close the open branch on the right, because adierent instance is required. But in fact it is justied to derive even (8x):q(x)as a lemma. This is always possible when the proof of (that is: the tableau below)the lemma does not instantiate any variables that occur outside of it. It remains tobe seen whether such an optimization can be eciently implemented and does notblow up the search space beyond any usefulness.4.8. <strong>Tableau</strong>x and Logic ProgrammingSome calculi for extensions of logic programs have a natural interpretation as variantsof clause tableaux. This includes [47, 48, 40, 51, 3]. Their treatment isbeyond
<strong>Tableau</strong>-<strong>Based</strong> <strong>Theorem</strong> <strong>Proving</strong> 35the scope of this course.5. Historical RemarksDespite their recent ourishing, the history of tableau methods is much older thanthat of resolution. They can be traced back to the cut-free version of Gentzen'ssequent calculus [21]. Hintikka [30] and Beth [10] abstracted from structural rules insequent calculi (essentially treating sequents as sets of formulas), improved the proofrepresentation, and introduced signed formulas. They also stressed the semanticview of tableaux as a procedure that tries systematically to nd a counter examplefor a given formula (a model in which its negation is true) as opposed to Gentzen'spurely proof theoretical motivation. 8 Further improvements were made by Schutte[53]; Smullyan's elegant formulation [58], employing unifying notation which greatlysimplied matters, became very popular while similar contributions by Lis [37]unfortunately went unnoticed.Many important improvements directed to automated proof search in sequent/tableau/modelelimination calculi were made quite early: free variables[31, 50], unication [38, 11, 1], proof representation and connection renements[17, 11, 1].The relative success of resolution-based theorem proving, however, eclipsed thisprogress and serious implementations of tableau-like calculi are spurious before thelate 1980s [13, 44].In the last decade tableau-like calculi became focal points of research again,spurred by the success of ecient implementations and the demand for a computationaltreatment of non-classical logics. The tableau community gathers in aninternational conference, 9 where many of the relevant results are now published.The Handbook of <strong>Tableau</strong> Methods [16] contains extensive and fairly up-to-dateinformation, not only with respect to automated reasoning.References[1] Peter B. Andrews. <strong>Theorem</strong> proving through general matings. JACM, 28:193{214, 1981.[2] Peter Baumgartner. Hyper <strong>Tableau</strong>x | The Next Generation. In Harrie de Swart, editor,Proc. International Conference onAutomated Reasoning with Analytic <strong>Tableau</strong>x and RelatedMethods, Oosterwijk, The Netherlands, number 1397 in LNCS, pages 60{76. Springer-Verlag,1998.[3] Peter Baumgartner and Uli Furbach. Model Elimination without Contrapositives and itsApplication to PTTP. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 13:339{359, 1994.[4] Peter Baumgartner, Ulrich Furbach, and Ilkka Niemela. Hyper tableaux. Technical Report8/96, Institute for Computer Science, University of Koblenz, Germany, 1996. http://www.unikoblenz.de/universitaet/fb4/publications/GelbeReihe/RR-8-96.ps.gz.8 The proof theoretic tradition is very much alive today as witnessed, for example, by Girard'swork [22], but it is not really relevant for automated deduction.9 http://www.cs.albany.edu/ nvm/tab99/