6 Search Results for "Schneider, Carsten"

Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.ICDT.2018.15
Querying the Unary Negation Fragment with Regular Path Expressions

Authors: Jean Christoph Jung, Carsten Lutz, Mauricio Martel, and Thomas Schneider

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 98, 21st International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT 2018)

Abstract
The unary negation fragment of first-order logic (UNFO) has recently been proposed as a generalization of modal logic that shares many of its good computational and model-theoretic properties. It is attractive from the perspective of database theory because it can express conjunctive queries (CQs) and ontologies formulated in many description logics (DLs). Both are relevant for ontology-mediated querying and, in fact, CQ evaluation under UNFO ontologies (and thus also under DL ontologies) can be `expressed' in UNFO as a satisfiability problem. In this paper, we consider the natural extension of UNFO with regular expressions on binary relations. The resulting logic UNFOreg can express (unions of) conjunctive two-way regular path queries (C2RPQs) and ontologies formulated in DLs that include transitive roles and regular expressions on roles. Our main results are that evaluating C2RPQs under UNFOreg ontologies is decidable, 2ExpTime-complete in combined complexity, and coNP-complete in data complexity, and that satisfiability in UNFOreg is 2ExpTime-complete, thus not harder than in UNFO.
Cite as

Jean Christoph Jung, Carsten Lutz, Mauricio Martel, and Thomas Schneider. Querying the Unary Negation Fragment with Regular Path Expressions. In 21st International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT 2018). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 98, pp. 15:1-15:18, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2018)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{jung_et_al:LIPIcs.ICDT.2018.15,
  author =	{Jung, Jean Christoph and Lutz, Carsten and Martel, Mauricio and Schneider, Thomas},
  title =	{{Querying the Unary Negation Fragment with Regular Path Expressions}},
  booktitle =	{21st International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT 2018)},
  pages =	{15:1--15:18},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-063-7},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2018},
  volume =	{98},
  editor =	{Kimelfeld, Benny and Amsterdamer, Yael},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops-dev.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICDT.2018.15},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-85971},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.ICDT.2018.15},
  annote =	{Keywords: Query Answering, Regular Path Queries, Decidable Fragments of First-Order Logic, Computational Complexity}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2017.108
Conservative Extensions in Guarded and Two-Variable Fragments

Authors: Jean Christoph Jung, Carsten Lutz, Mauricio Martel, Thomas Schneider, and Frank Wolter

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 80, 44th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2017)

Abstract
We investigate the decidability and computational complexity of (deductive) conservative extensions in fragments of first-order logic (FO), with a focus on the two-variable fragment FO2 and the guarded fragment GF. We prove that conservative extensions are undecidable in any FO fragment that contains FO2 or GF (even the three-variable fragment thereof), and that they are decidable and 2ExpTime-complete in the intersection GF2 of FO2 and GF.
Cite as

Jean Christoph Jung, Carsten Lutz, Mauricio Martel, Thomas Schneider, and Frank Wolter. Conservative Extensions in Guarded and Two-Variable Fragments. In 44th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2017). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 80, pp. 108:1-108:14, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2017)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{jung_et_al:LIPIcs.ICALP.2017.108,
  author =	{Jung, Jean Christoph and Lutz, Carsten and Martel, Mauricio and Schneider, Thomas and Wolter, Frank},
  title =	{{Conservative Extensions in Guarded and Two-Variable Fragments}},
  booktitle =	{44th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2017)},
  pages =	{108:1--108:14},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-041-5},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2017},
  volume =	{80},
  editor =	{Chatzigiannakis, Ioannis and Indyk, Piotr and Kuhn, Fabian and Muscholl, Anca},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops-dev.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2017.108},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-74647},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2017.108},
  annote =	{Keywords: Conservative Extensions, Decidable Fragments of First-Order Logic, Computational Complexity\}}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/DagSemProc.09411.4
Inductive Theorem Proving meets Dependency Pairs

Authors: Stephan Swiderski, Michael Parting, Jürgen Giesl, Carsten Fuhs, and Peter Schneider-Kamp

Published in: Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 9411, Interaction versus Automation: The two Faces of Deduction (2010)

Abstract
Current techniques and tools for automated termination analysis of term rewrite systems (TRSs) are already very powerful. However, they fail for algorithms whose termination is essentially due to an inductive argument. Therefore, we show how to couple the dependency pair method for TRS termination with inductive theorem proving. As confirmed by the implementation of our new approach in the tool AProVE, now TRS termination techniques are also successful on this important class of algorithms.
Cite as

Stephan Swiderski, Michael Parting, Jürgen Giesl, Carsten Fuhs, and Peter Schneider-Kamp. Inductive Theorem Proving meets Dependency Pairs. In Interaction versus Automation: The two Faces of Deduction. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 9411, pp. 1-4, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2010)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{swiderski_et_al:DagSemProc.09411.4,
  author =	{Swiderski, Stephan and Parting, Michael and Giesl, J\"{u}rgen and Fuhs, Carsten and Schneider-Kamp, Peter},
  title =	{{Inductive Theorem Proving meets Dependency Pairs}},
  booktitle =	{Interaction versus Automation: The two Faces of Deduction},
  pages =	{1--4},
  series =	{Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings (DagSemProc)},
  ISSN =	{1862-4405},
  year =	{2010},
  volume =	{9411},
  editor =	{Thomas Ball and J\"{u}rgen Giesl and Reiner H\"{a}hnle and Tobias Nipkow},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops-dev.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/DagSemProc.09411.4},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-24220},
  doi =		{10.4230/DagSemProc.09411.4},
  annote =	{Keywords: Termination, Term Rewriting, Dependency Pairs, Inductive Theorem Proving}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/DagSemProc.09411.5
Termination of Integer Term Rewriting

Authors: Carsten Fuhs, Jürgen Giesl, Martin Plücker, Peter Schneider-Kamp, and Stephan Falke

Published in: Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 9411, Interaction versus Automation: The two Faces of Deduction (2010)

Abstract
Recently, techniques and tools from term rewriting have been successfully applied to prove termination automatically for different programming languages. The advantage of rewrite techniques is that they are very powerful for algorithms on user-defined data structures. But in contrast to techniques for termination analysis of imperative programs, the drawback of rewrite techniques is that they do not support data structures like integer numbers which are pre-defined in almost all programming languages. To solve this problem, we extend term rewriting by built-in integers and adapt the dependency pair framework to prove termination of integer term rewriting automatically. Our experiments show that this indeed combines the power of rewrite techniques on user-defined data types with a powerful treatment of pre-defined integers.
Cite as

Carsten Fuhs, Jürgen Giesl, Martin Plücker, Peter Schneider-Kamp, and Stephan Falke. Termination of Integer Term Rewriting. In Interaction versus Automation: The two Faces of Deduction. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 9411, pp. 1-4, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2010)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{fuhs_et_al:DagSemProc.09411.5,
  author =	{Fuhs, Carsten and Giesl, J\"{u}rgen and Pl\"{u}cker, Martin and Schneider-Kamp, Peter and Falke, Stephan},
  title =	{{Termination of Integer Term Rewriting}},
  booktitle =	{Interaction versus Automation: The two Faces of Deduction},
  pages =	{1--4},
  series =	{Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings (DagSemProc)},
  ISSN =	{1862-4405},
  year =	{2010},
  volume =	{9411},
  editor =	{Thomas Ball and J\"{u}rgen Giesl and Reiner H\"{a}hnle and Tobias Nipkow},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops-dev.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/DagSemProc.09411.5},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-24233},
  doi =		{10.4230/DagSemProc.09411.5},
  annote =	{Keywords: Termination analysis, integers, term rewriting, dependency pairs}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/DagSemProc.07401.5
Implementing RPO and POLO using SAT

Authors: Peter Schneider-Kamp, Carsten Fuhs, René Thiemann, Jürgen Giesl, Elena Annov, Michael Codish, Aart Middeldorp, and Harald Zankl

Published in: Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 7401, Deduction and Decision Procedures (2007)

Abstract
Well-founded orderings are the most basic, but also most important ingredient to virtually all termination analyses. The recursive path order with status (RPO) and polynomial interpretations (POLO) are the two classes that are the most popular in the termination analysis of term rewrite systems. Numerous fully automated search algorithms for these classes have therefore been devised and implemented in termination tools. Unfortunately, the performance of these algorithms on all but the smallest termination problems has been lacking. E.g., recently developed transformations from programming languages like Haskell or Prolog allow to apply termination tools for term rewrite systems to real programming languages. The results of the transformations are often of non-trivial size, though, and cannot be handled efficiently by the existing algorithms. The need for more efficient search algorithms has triggered research in reducing these search problems into decision problems for which more efficient algorithms already exist. Here, we introduce an encoding of RPO and POLO to the satisfiability of propositional logic (SAT). We implemented these encodings in our termination tool AProVE. Extensive experiments have shown that one can obtain speedups in orders of magnitude by this encoding and the application of modern SAT solvers. The talk is based on joint work with Elena Annov, Mike Codish, Carsten Fuhs, Jürgen Giesl, Aart Middeldorp, René Thiemann, and Harald Zankl.
Cite as

Peter Schneider-Kamp, Carsten Fuhs, René Thiemann, Jürgen Giesl, Elena Annov, Michael Codish, Aart Middeldorp, and Harald Zankl. Implementing RPO and POLO using SAT. In Deduction and Decision Procedures. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 7401, pp. 1-10, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2007)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{schneiderkamp_et_al:DagSemProc.07401.5,
  author =	{Schneider-Kamp, Peter and Fuhs, Carsten and Thiemann, Ren\'{e} and Giesl, J\"{u}rgen and Annov, Elena and Codish, Michael and Middeldorp, Aart and Zankl, Harald},
  title =	{{Implementing RPO and POLO using SAT}},
  booktitle =	{Deduction and Decision Procedures},
  pages =	{1--10},
  series =	{Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings (DagSemProc)},
  ISSN =	{1862-4405},
  year =	{2007},
  volume =	{7401},
  editor =	{Franz Baader and Byron Cook and J\"{u}rgen Giesl and Robert Nieuwenhuis},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops-dev.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/DagSemProc.07401.5},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-12491},
  doi =		{10.4230/DagSemProc.07401.5},
  annote =	{Keywords: Termination, SAT, recursive path order, polynomial interpretation}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/DagSemProc.05021.19
Some Notes On ``When is 0.999... equal to 1?

Authors: Carsten Schneider

Published in: Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 5021, Mathematics, Algorithms, Proofs (2006)

Abstract
In joint work Robin Pemantle and I (2004) consider a doubly infinite sum which is not equal to 1, as first suspected, but evaluates to a sum of products of values of the zeta function. Subsequently, I report on this project.
Cite as

Carsten Schneider. Some Notes On ``When is 0.999... equal to 1?. In Mathematics, Algorithms, Proofs. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 5021, pp. 1-3, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2006)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{schneider:DagSemProc.05021.19,
  author =	{Schneider, Carsten},
  title =	{{Some Notes On ``When is 0.999... equal to 1?}},
  booktitle =	{Mathematics, Algorithms, Proofs},
  pages =	{1--3},
  series =	{Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings (DagSemProc)},
  ISSN =	{1862-4405},
  year =	{2006},
  volume =	{5021},
  editor =	{Thierry Coquand and Henri Lombardi and Marie-Fran\c{c}oise Roy},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops-dev.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/DagSemProc.05021.19},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-2755},
  doi =		{10.4230/DagSemProc.05021.19},
  annote =	{Keywords: Symbolic summation, computer algebra, proofs, harmonic numbers, zeta-relations}
}
  • Refine by Author
  • 3 Fuhs, Carsten
  • 3 Giesl, Jürgen
  • 3 Schneider-Kamp, Peter
  • 2 Jung, Jean Christoph
  • 2 Lutz, Carsten
  • Show More...

  • Refine by Classification

  • Refine by Keyword
  • 2 Decidable Fragments of First-Order Logic
  • 2 Termination
  • 1 Computational Complexity
  • 1 Computational Complexity}
  • 1 Conservative Extensions
  • Show More...

  • Refine by Type
  • 6 document

  • Refine by Publication Year
  • 2 2010
  • 1 2006
  • 1 2007
  • 1 2017
  • 1 2018

Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact