Small clause results

Computing Small Clause Normal Forms

On Generating Small Clause Normal Forms

In this paper we focus on two powerful techniques to obtain compact clause normal forms: Renaming of formulae and reened Skolem-ization methods. We illustrate their eeect on various examples. By an exhaustive experiment of all rst-order TPTP problems, it shows that our clause normal form transformation yields fewer clauses and fewer literals than the methods known and used so far. This often al...

Ettehkey 'how' as a Small Clause Head

WH-words are not uniform in their syntactic behaviors. Adjunct WH-words such as HOW and WHY are said to be more restricted in their distribution than argument WH-words such as WHO and WHAT. It is observed, however, that HOW in some East Asian languages behaves more like argument WH-words and does not display ECP effects. In this paper, I try to account for the HOW vs. WHY difference in Korean. ...

Experimenting Small Changes in Conflict-Driven Clause Learning Algorithms

Experimentation of new algorithms is the usual companion section of papers dealing with SAT. However, the behavior of those algorithms is so unpredictable that even strong experiments (hundreds of benchmarks, dozen of solvers) can be still misleading. We present here a set of experiments of very small changes of a canonical Conflict Driven Clause Learning (CDCL) solver and show that even very c...

Experimenting with Small Changes in Conflict-Driven Clause Learning Algorithms

–Conflict-Driven Clause Learning: – are believed to be well-known: ∗ They embed dynamic heuristics [6, 3], learning [7], restarts [4, 1] and lazy data structures [6]. ∗ (efficient) SAT Solvers can be written from scratch in less than a thousand lines of code. – are not so well-known: ∗Who really understand the underlying mechanisms? ∗No real experimental studies: Progresses have been made with ...