The language features and architecture of B-Prolog

Zhou, Neng-Fa

doi:10.1017/s1471068411000445

Cited by 47 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(67 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The constraint logic programming libraries of many Prolog systems [5,8,13,42] provide search heuristics that offer limited reusability: they are hardwired in a generic labelling predicate that can be used to solve particular classes of problems. The one exception is the branch-and-bound heuristic of ECLiPSe [29], which is not tied to a labelling predicate.…”

Section: Constraint Programmingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heuristics Entwined with Handlers Combined

Schrijvers

Desouter

et al. 2014

Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A long-standing problem in logic programming is how to cleanly separate logic and control. While solutions exist, they fall short in one of two ways: some are too intrusive, because they require significant changes to Prolog's underlying implementation; others are lacking a clean semantic grounding. We resolve both of these issues in this paper.We derive a solution that is both lightweight and principled. We do so by starting from a functional specification of Prolog based on monads, and extend this with the effect handlers approach to capture the dynamic search tree as syntax. Effect handlers then express heuristics in terms of tree transformations. Moreover, we can declaratively express many heuristics as trees themselves that are combined with search problems using a generic entwining handler. Our solution is not restricted to a functional model: we show how to implement this technique as a library in Prolog by means of delimited continuations.

show abstract

Section: Constraint Programmingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heuristics Entwined with Handlers Combined

Schrijvers

Desouter

et al. 2014

Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Systems implement either top-down evaluation, e.g., XSB (by default) (Swift and Warren 2012) and other Prolog systems that include tabling, such as YAP (Santos Costa et al 2012), Ciao Prolog (Hermenegildo et al 2012), BProlog (Zhou 2012) and as a library in SWI Prolog (Weilemaker et al 2017), or bottom-up evaluation, e.g., LDL++ (Arni et al 2003), Coral (Ramakrishnan et al 1994) and LogicBlox (Aref et al 2015), among many others. In this paper we consider the properties and advantages of each strategy and propose that they be integrated in a single system, with each having a distinct procedural interpretation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Top-down and Bottom-up Evaluation Procedurally Integrated

Warren

2018

EasyChair Preprints

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes how the Logic Programming System XSB combines top-down and bottomup computation through the mechanisms of variant tabling and subsumptive tabling with abstraction, respectively.It is well known that top-down evaluation of logical rules in Prolog has a procedural interpretation as recursive procedure invocation (Kowalski 1986). Tabling adds the intuition of short-circuiting redundant computations (Warren 1992). This paper shows how to introduce into tabled logic program evaluation a bottom-up component, whose procedural intuition is the initialization of a data structure, in which a relation is initially computed and filled, on first demand, and then used throughout the remainder of a larger computation for efficient lookup. This allows many Prolog programs to be expressed fully declaratively, programs which formerly required procedural features, such as assert, to be made efficient.

show abstract

“…As an added bonus, the memoisation of the tabling mechanism may significantly improve run time performance in exchange for increased memory usage. Tabling has been implemented in a few well-known Prolog systems, such as XSB (Swift and Warren 2010;Swift and Warren 2012),Yap (Santos Costa et al 2012), Ciao (Chico de Guzmán et al 2008) and B-Prolog (Zhou 2012), and has been successfully applied in various domains.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tabling with Sound Answer Subsumption

Vandenbroucke¹,

Piróg²,

Desouter³

et al. 2016

Theory and Practice of Logic Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tabling is a powerful resolution mechanism for logic programs that captures their least fixed point semantics more faithfully than plain Prolog. In many tabling applications, we are not interested in the set of all answers to a goal, but only require an aggregation of those answers. Several works have studied efficient techniques, such as lattice-based answer subsumption and mode-directed tabling, to do so for various forms of aggregation.While much attention has been paid to expressivity and efficient implementation of the different approaches, soundness has not been considered. This paper shows that the different implementations indeed fail to produce least fixed points for some programs. As a remedy, we provide a formal framework that generalises the existing approaches and we establish a soundness criterion that explains for which programs the approach is sound. This article is under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.

show abstract

The language features and architecture of B-Prolog

Cited by 47 publications

References 34 publications

Heuristics Entwined with Handlers Combined

Heuristics Entwined with Handlers Combined

Top-down and Bottom-up Evaluation Procedurally Integrated

Tabling with Sound Answer Subsumption

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About