Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T07:45:04.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constraint logic programming

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

Pascal Van Hentenryck
Pascal Van Hentenryck
Affiliation:
Brown University, Box 1910, Providence, RI 02912, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Constraint logic programming (CLP) is a generalization of logic programming (LP) where unification, the basic operation of LP languages, is replaced by constraint handling in a constraint system. The resulting languages combine the advantages of LP (declarative semantics, nondeterminism, relational form) with the efficiency of constraint-solving algorithms. For some classes of combinatorial search problems, they shorten the development time significantly while preserving most of the efficiency of imperative languages. This paper surveys this new class of programming languages from their underlying theory, to their constraint systems, and to their applications to combinatorial problems.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 1991 , pp. 151 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aiba, A, Sakai, K, Sato, Y, Hawley, DJ and Hasegawa, R, 1988. “Constraint logic programming CAL” In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer SystemsTokyo, Japan,December.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ait-kaci, H and Nasr, R, 1986. “LOGIN: a logic programming language with built-in inheritance” Journal of Logic Programming 3(3) 185–215, October.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ait-kaci, H and Podelski, A, 1990. “Is there a meaning to LIFE” (submitted for publication).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berthier, F, 1988. “Using CHIP to support decision making” In: Actes du Seminaire 1988–Programmation en Logique Tregastel, France, May.Google Scholar
Borning, A, Maher, M, Martingale, A and Wilson, M, 1989. “Constraint hierarchies and logic programming” In: Sixth International Conference on Logic ProgrammingLisbon, Portugal,June.Google Scholar
Bryant, RE, 1986. “Graph based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation” IEEE Transactions on Computers 35(8) 677–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brzozowski, JA and Yoeli, M, 1985. Combinatorial Static CMOS Networks. Technical Report CS-85–42, University of Waterloo.Google Scholar
Buchberger, B, 1985. Groebner Bases: An Algorithmic Method in Polynomial Ideal Theory, Reidel Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Buttner, W and Simonis, H, 1987. “Embedding Boolean expressions into logic programming” Journal of Symbolic Computation 4 191–205, October.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, KL and McCabe, F, 1979. “The control facilities of IC-PROLOG” In: Mitchie, D (ed.), Expert Systems in the Micro Electronic Age Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Clocksin, WF, 1987. “Logic programming and digital circuit analysis” J. Logic Programming 4(1) 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J, 1990. “Constraint logic programming languages” Commun. ACM 28(4).Google Scholar
Colmerauer, A, Kanoui, H, Pasero, R and Roussel, P, 1973. Un système de communication homme-machine en français. Rapport de recherche, Groupe Intelligence Artificielle, Université d'Aix-Marseille II.Google Scholar
Colmerauer, A, Kanoui, H and Van Caneghem, M, 1983. “Prolog, bases theoriques et developpements actuels” Techniques et Sciences Informatiques 2(4) 271–311.Google Scholar
Colmerauer, A, 1987. “Opening the Prolog-III universe” BYTE Magazine 12(9).Google Scholar
Colmerauer, A, 1990. “An introduction to Prolog III” Commun. ACM 28(4) 412–418.Google Scholar
Cox, J, McAloon, K and Tretkoff, C, 1990. “Computational complexity and constraint logic programming languages” In: Proceedings of the North-American Conference on Logic Programming (NACLP-90),Austin, TX,October.Google Scholar
Dantzig, GB, Orden, A and Wolfe, P, 1955. “The generalized simplex method for minimizing a linear form under linear inequality constraints” Pacific J. Math. 5(2) 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, M and Putman, H, 1960. “A computation procedure for quantification theory” J. ACM 7 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, R, 1984. “Diagnostic reasoning based on structure and behavior” Artificial Intelligence 24 347–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deville, Y and Van Hentenryck, P, 1991. “An efficient arc consistency algorithm for a class of CSP problems” In: International Joint Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSydney, Australia,August.Google Scholar
Dincbas, M, Simonis, H and Van Hentenryck, P, 1988a. “Solving a cutting-stock problem in constraint logic programming” In: Fifth International Conference on Logic ProgrammingSeattle, W A,August.Google Scholar
Dincbas, M, Simonis, H and Van Hentenryck, P, 1988b. “Solving large scheduling problems in logic programming” In: EURO-TIMS Joint International Conference on Operations Research and Management ScienceParis, France,July.Google Scholar
Dincbas, M, Simonis, H and Van Hentenryck, P, 1988c. “Solving the car sequencing problem in constraint logic programming” In: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-88)Munich, Germany,August.Google Scholar
Dincbas, M, Simonis, H and Van Hentenryck, P, 1990. “Solving large combinatorial problems in logic programming”: J. Logic Programming 8(1–2) 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dincbas, M, Van Hentenryck, P, Simonis, H, Aggoun, A, Graf, T and Berthier, F, 1988. “The constraint logic programming language CHIP” in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer SystemsTokyo, Japan,December.Google Scholar
Fikes, RE, 1968. A Heuristic Program for Solving Problems Stated as Non-deterministic Procedures, PhD thesis, Computer Science Department, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Gallaire, H, 1985. “Logic programming: further developments” In: IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming, pp 88–99, Boston, MA, July.Google Scholar
Gallaire, H and Lasserre, C, 1982. Metalevel Control for Logic Programs Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gorlick, MM, Kesselman, CVF, Marotta, DA and Parker, DS, 1990. “Mockingbird: a logical methodology for testing” J. Logic Programming 8(1–2) 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graf, T, 1987. Extending Constraint Handling in Logic Programming to Rational Arithmetic. Internal Report, ECRC, Munich, Germany, 09.Google Scholar
Graf, T, 1989. Raisonner sur les contraintes en programmation logique, PhD thesis, Université de Nice, France.Google Scholar
Graf, T, Van Hentenryck, P, Pradelles, C and Zimmer, L, 1989. “Simulation of hybrid circuits in constraint logic programming” In: International Joint Conference on Artificial IntelligenceDetroit, MI,August.Google Scholar
Graf, T, Van Hentenryck, P, Pradelles, C and Zimmer, L, 1990. “Simulation of hybrid circuits in constraint logic programming” Computers and Mathematics with Applications 20(9/10) 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haridi, S, 1990. “A logic programming language based on the Ando¡rra model” New Generation Computation (to appear).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heintze, NC, Michaylov, S and Stuckey, PJ, 1987. “CLP(ℜ) and some electrical engineering problems” In: Fourth International Conference on Logic ProgrammingMelbourne,Australia,May.Google Scholar
Heintze, N, Michaylov, S, Stuckey, P and Yap, R, 1989. “On meta-programming in CLP(ℜ)” In: Proceedings of the North-American Conference on Logic Programming (NACLP-89), pp 52–68, Cleveland, OH,October.Google Scholar
Imbert, JL, 1990, “About redundant inequalities generated by Fourier's algorithm” In: AIMSA '90, Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems, ApplicationsAlbena-Varna,Bulgaria,September.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imbert, JL and Van Hentenryck, P, 1991. Efficient Handling of Disequations in CLP over Linear Rational Arithmetics. Technical Report CS-91–23, CS Department, Brown University.Google Scholar
Jaffar, J and Lassez, J-L, 1987. “Constraint logic programming” In: POPL–87 Munich, Germany, 01.Google Scholar
Jaffar, J and Michaylov, S, 1987. “Methodology and implementation of a CLP system” In: Fourth International Conference on Logic ProgrammingMelbourne,Australia,May.Google Scholar
Jaffar, J, Michaylov, S, Stuckey, PJ and Yap, R, 1990. “The CLP(ℜ) Language and System. Research report”, IBM.Google Scholar
Jorgensen, N and Marriot, K, 1990. “Useful compile-time optimizations for CLP(ℜ)”, (draft).Google Scholar
Kanellakis, PC, Kuper, GM and Revesz, PZ, 1990. “Constraint query languages” In: PODS-90 Nashville, TE.Google Scholar
Karmarkar, N, 1984. “A new polynomial-time algorithm for linear programming” Combinatorica 4(4) 373–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khachian, LG, 1979. “A polynomial algorithm in linear programming” Soviet Math. Dokl. 20(1) 191–194.Google Scholar
Kowalski, R, 1974. “Predicate logic as programming language” In: Proceedings of the IFIP Congress 74, pp 569–574, North-Holland.Google Scholar
Lassez, J-L, Huynh, T and McAloon, K, 1989. “Simplification and elimination of redundant arithmetic constraints” In: Proceedings of the North-American Conference on Logic Programming (NACLP-89)Cleveland, OH,October.Google Scholar
Lassez, J-L and McAloon, K, 1988. “Applications of a canonical form for generalized linear constraints” In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer SystemsTokyo, Japan,December.Google Scholar
Lassez, C, McAloon, K and Yap, R, 1987. “Constraint logic programming and option trading” IEEE Expert 2(3) 42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauriere, J-L, 1978. “A language and a program for stating and solving combinatorial problems” Artificial Intelligence 10(1) 29–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, P and Stuckey, P, 1990. “Meta programming as constraint programming” In: Proceedings of the North-American Conference on Logic Programming (NACLP-90)Austin, TX,October.Google Scholar
Mackworth, AK, 1977. “Consistency in networks of relations” AI Journal 8(1) 99–118.Google Scholar
Maher, MJ, 1987. “Logic semantics for a class of committed-choice programs” In: Fourth International Conference on Logic Programming, pp 858–876, Melbourne,Australia,May.Google Scholar
Maher, M and Stuckey, P, 1989. “Expanding query power in constraint logic programming languages” In: Proceedings of the North-American Conference on Logic Programming (NACLP-89)Cleveland, OH,October.Google Scholar
Marriot, K and Sondergaard, H, 1990. “Analysis of constraint logic programs”: In: Proceedings of the North-American Conference on Logic Programming (NACLP-90)Austin, TX,October.Google Scholar
Martin, U and Nipkow, T, 1986. “Unification in Boolean rings” In: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Automated Deduction, pp 506–513, Oxford, UK,July.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohr, R and Henderson, TC, 1986. “Arc and path consistency revisited” Artificial Intelligence 28 225–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montanari, U and Rossi, F, 1986. “An efficient algorithm for the solution of hierarchical networks of constraints”: In: Workshop on Graph Grammars and their Applications in Computer Science Warrenton, DC, December.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naish, L, 1985. Negation and Control in Prolog, PhD thesis, University of Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Older, WandVellino, A, 1990. “Extending Prolog with constraint arithmetics on real intervals” In: Canadian Conference on Computer & Electrical EngineeringOttawa.Google Scholar
Parker, DS and Muntz, RR, “A Theory of Directed Logic Programs and Streams” In: Fifth International Conference on Logic Programming,Seattle, WA,August.Google Scholar
Parker, RG and Rardin, RL, 1988. Discrete Optimization Academic Press.Google Scholar
Parrello, BD, 1988. “CAR WARS: the (almost) birth of an expert system” AI Expert 3(1) 60–64.Google Scholar
Plotkin, GD, 1981. A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, CS Department, University of Aarhus.Google Scholar
Radeanu, S, 1974. Boolean Functions and Equations North-Holland.Google Scholar
Rossi, F, 1991. Towards an Ideal Notion of Constraint Programming, PhD Thesis Proposal, Computer Science Department, University of Pisa, Italy.Google Scholar
Saraswat, VA, 1989. Concurrent Constraint Programming Languages, PhD thesis, Carnegie-Mellon University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saraswat, VA, Kahn, K and Levy, J, 1990. “Janus: a step towards distributed constraint programming” In: Proceedings of the North-American Conference on Logic Programming (NACLP-90)Austin, TX,October.Google Scholar
Saraswat, VA and Rinard, M, 1990. Concurrent constraint programming” In: Proceedings of Seventeenth ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages San Francisco, CA, 01.Google Scholar
Saraswat, VA, Rinard, M and Panangaden, P, 1991. “Semantic foundations of concurrent constraint programming” In: Proceedings of Ninth ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages Orlando, FL, 01.Google Scholar
Shapiro, E, 1990. “The family of concurrent logic programming languages” Computing Surveys 21(3) 413–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonis, H, 1989. “Test generation using the constraint logic programming language CHIP” In: Sixth International Conference on Logic ProgrammingLisbon,Portugal,June.Google Scholar
Simonis, H and Dincbas, M, 1987a. “Using an extended Prolog for digital circuit design” In: IEEE International Workshop on AI Applications to CAD Systems for Electronics, pp 165–188, Munich, Germany, 10.Google Scholar
Simonis, H and Dincbas, M, 1987b. “Using logic programming for fault diagnosis in digital circuits” In: German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence (GWAI-87), pp 139–148, Geseke, Germany, September.Google Scholar
Smith, DA and Hickey, TJ, 1990. “Partial evaluation of a CLP language” In: Proceedings of the North-American Conference on Logic Programming (NACLP-90)Austin, TX,October.Google Scholar
Stuckey, PJ, 1990. “Incremental linear arithmetic constraint solving and detection of implicit equalities” (submitted for publication).Google Scholar
Sussman, GJ and Steele, GL, 1980. “CONSTRAINTS—A language for expressing almost-hierarchical descriptions” AI Journal 14(1).Google Scholar
Van Hentenryck, P, 1989a. “A logic language for combinatorial optimization” Annals of Operations Research 21 247–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hentenryck, P, 1989b. Constraint Satisfaction in Logic Programming Logic Programming Series, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van Hentenryck, P, 1989c. “Parallel constraint satisfaction in logic programming: preliminary results of CHIP within PEPSys” In: Sixth International Conference on Logic ProgrammingLisbon,Portugal,June.Google Scholar
Van Hentenryck, P, 1990. “Incremental constraint satisfaction in logic programming” In: Seventh International Conference on Logic ProgrammingJerusalem, Israel,June.Google Scholar
Van Hentenryck, P and Deville, Y, 1990. Operational Semantics of Constraint Logic Programming over Finite Domains. Technical Report CSA-90–23, CS Department, Brown University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hentenryck, P and Deville, Y, 1991. “The cardinality operator: a new logical connective and its application to constraint logic programming” In: Eighth International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP-91)Paris, France,June.Google Scholar
Van Hentenryck, P and Graf, T, 1990. “Standard forms for rational linear arithmetics in constraint logic programming” In: International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics Fort Lauderdale, FL, 01, (also ECRC internal Report IR-LP-2217.)Google Scholar
Voda, P, 1988. The Constraint Language Trilogy: Semantics and Computations. Technical report, Complete Logic Systems, North Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
Walinsky, C, 1989. “CLP(σ*)” In: Sixth International Conference on Logic ProgrammingLisbon, Portugal,June.Google Scholar