Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a purely declarative formalism developed in the field of logic programming and non-monotonic reasoning: computational problems are encoded by logic programs whose answer sets, corresponding to solutions, are computed by an ASP system. Different, semantically equivalent, programs can be defined for the same problem; however, performance of systems evaluating them might significantly vary. We propose an approach for automatically transforming an input logic program into an equivalent one that can be evaluated more efficiently. One can make use of existing tree-decomposition techniques for rewriting selected rules into a set of multiple ones; the idea is to guide and adaptively apply them on the basis of proper new heuristics, to obtain a smart rewriting algorithm to be integrated into an ASP system. The method is rather general: it can be adapted to any system and implement different preference policies. Furthermore, we define a set of new heuristics tailored at optimizing grounding, one of the main phases of the ASP computation; we use them in order to implement the approach into the ASP system DLV, in particular into its grounding subsystem ℐ-DLV, and carry out an extensive experimental activity for assessing the impact of the proposal.

We propose a modular method for proving termination of general logic programs (i.e. logic programs with negation). It is based on the notion of acceptable programs, but it allows us to prove termination in a truly modular way. We consider programs consisting of a hierarchy of modules and supply a general result for proving termination by dealing with each module separately. For programs which are in a certain sense well-behaved, namely well-moded or well-typed programs, we derive both a simple verification technique and an iterative proof method. Some examples show how our system allows for greatly simplified proofs.

When programs feature a complex control flow, existing techniques for resource analysis produce cost relation systems (CRS) whose cost functions retain the complex flow of the program and, consequently, might not be solvable into closed-form upper bounds. This paper presents a novel approach to resource analysis that is driven by the result of a termination analysis. The fundamental idea is that the termination proof encapsulates the flows of the program which are relevant for the cost computation so that, by driving the generation of the CRS using the termination proof, we produce a linearly-bounded CRS (LB-CRS). A LB-CRS is composed of cost functions that are guaranteed to be locally bounded by linear ranking functions and thus greatly simplify the process of CRS solving. We have built a new resource analysis tool, named MaxCore, that is guided by the VeryMax termination analyzer and uses CoFloCo and PUBS as CRS solvers. Our experimental results on the set of benchmarks from the Complexity and Termination Competition 2019 for C Integer programs show that MaxCore outperforms all other resource analysis tools.

BigDatalog is an extension of Datalog that achieves performance and scalability on both Apache Spark and multicore systems to the point that its graph analytics outperform those written in GraphX. Looking back, we see how this realizes the ambitious goal pursued by deductive database researchers beginning 40 years ago: this is the goal of combining the rigor and power of logic in expressing queries and reasoning with the performance and scalability by which relational databases managed BigData. This goal led to Datalog which is based on Horn Clauses like Prolog but employs implementation techniques, such as semi-naïve fixpoint and magic sets, that extend the bottom-up computation model of relational systems, and thus obtain the performance and scalability that relational systems had achieved, as far back as the 80s, using data-parallelization on shared-nothing architectures. But this goal proved difficult to achieve because of major issues at (i) the language level and (ii) at the system level. The paper describes how (i) was addressed by simple rules under which the fixpoint semantics extends to programs using count, sum and extrema in recursion, and (ii) was tamed by parallel compilation techniques that achieve scalability on multicore systems and Apache Spark. This paper is under consideration for acceptance in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

For some applications, standard resource analyses do not provide the information required. Such analyses estimate the total resource usage of a program (without executing it) as functions on input data sizes. However, some applications require knowing how such total resource usage is distributed over selected parts of a program. We propose a novel, general, and flexible framework for setting up cost equations/relations which can be instantiated for performing a wide range of resource usage analyses, including both static profiling and the inference of the standard notion of cost. We extend and generalize standard resource analysis techniques, so that the relations generated include additional Boolean control variables for switching on or off different terms in the relations, as required by the desired resource usage profile. We also instantiate our framework to perform static profiling of accumulated cost (also parameterized by input data sizes). Such information is much more useful to the software developer than the standard notion of cost: it identifies the parts of the program that have the greatest impact on the total program cost, and which therefore should be optimized first. We also report on an implementation of our framework within the CiaoPP system, and its instantiation for accumulated cost, and provide some experimental results. In addition to generality, our new method brings important advantages over our previous approach based on a program transformation, including support for non-deterministic programs, better and easier integration in the compiler, and higher efficiency.

The paper introduces a new modular action language, ${\mathcal ALM}$, and illustrates the methodology of its use. It is based on the approach of Gelfond and Lifschitz (1993, Journal of Logic Programming 17, 2–4, 301–321; 1998, Electronic Transactions on AI 3, 16, 193–210) in which a high-level action language is used as a front end for a logic programming system description. The resulting logic programming representation is used to perform various computational tasks. The methodology based on existing action languages works well for small and even medium size systems, but is not meant to deal with larger systems that require structuring of knowledge. $\mathcal{ALM}$ is meant to remedy this problem. Structuring of knowledge in ${\mathcal ALM}$ is supported by the concepts of module (a formal description of a specific piece of knowledge packaged as a unit), module hierarchy, and library, and by the division of a system description of ${\mathcal ALM}$ into two parts: theory and structure. A theory consists of one or more modules with a common theme, possibly organized into a module hierarchy based on a dependency relation. It contains declarations of sorts, attributes, and properties of the domain together with axioms describing them. Structures are used to describe the domain's objects. These features, together with the means for defining classes of a domain as special cases of previously defined ones, facilitate the stepwise development, testing, and readability of a knowledge base, as well as the creation of knowledge representation libraries.

We describe a compact serialization algorithm mapping Prolog terms to natural numbers of bit-sizes proportional to the memory representation of the terms. The algorithm is a ‘no bit lost’ bijection, as it associates to each Prolog term a unique natural number and each natural number corresponds to a unique syntactically well-formed term.

To avoid an exponential explosion resulting from bijections mapping term trees to natural numbers, we separate the symbol content and the syntactic skeleton of a term that we serialize compactly using a ranking algorithm for Catalan families.

A novel algorithm for the generalized Cantor bijection between ${\mathbb{N}$ and ${\mathbb{N}$k is used in the process of assigning polynomially bounded Gödel numberings to various data objects involved in the translation.

We advocate a declarative approach to proving properties of logic programs. Total correctness can be separated into correctness, completeness and clean termination; the latter includes non-floundering. Only clean termination depends on the operational semantics, in particular on the selection rule. We show how to deal with correctness and completeness in a declarative way, treating programs only from the logical point of view. Specifications used in this approach are interpretations (or theories). We point out that specifications for correctness may differ from those for completeness, as usually there are answers which are neither considered erroneous nor required to be computed. We present proof methods for correctness and completeness for definite programs and generalize them to normal programs. For normal programs we use the 3-valued completion semantics; this is a standard semantics corresponding to negation as finite failure. The proof methods employ solely the classical 2-valued logic. We use a 2-valued characterization of the 3-valued completion semantics, which may be of separate interest. The method of proving correctness of definite programs is not new and can be traced back to the work of clark in 1979. However a more complicated approach using operational semantics was proposed by some authors. We show that it is not stronger than the declarative one, as far as properties of program answers are concerned. For a corresponding operational approach to normal programs, we show that it is (strictly) weaker than our method. We also employ the ideas of this work to generalize a known method of proving termination of normal programs.

A large body of work has been dedicated to termination analysis of logic programs but relatively little has been done to analyze non-termination. In our opinion, explaining non-termination is a much more important task because it can dramatically improve a user's ability to effectively debug large, complex logic programs without having to abide by punishing syntactic restrictions. Non-termination analysis examines program execution history when the program is suspected to not terminate and informs the programmer about the exact reasons for this behavior. In Liang and Kifer (2013), we studied the problem of non-termination in tabled logic engines with subgoal abstraction, such as XSB, and proposed a suite of algorithms for non-termination analysis, called Terminyzer. These algorithms analyze forest logging traces and output sequences of tabled subgoal calls that are the likely causes of non-terminating cycles. However, this feedback was hard to use in practice: the same subgoal could occur in multiple rule heads and in even more places in rule bodies, so Terminyzer left too much tedious, sometimes combinatorially large amount of work for the user to do manually.

Here we propose a new suite of algorithms, Terminyzer+, which closes this usability gap. Terminyzer+ can detect not only sequences of subgoals that cause non-termination, but, importantly, the exact rules where they occur and the rule sequences that get fired in a cyclic manner, thus causing non-termination. This makes Terminyzer+ suitable as a back-end for user-friendly graphical interfaces on top of Terminyzer+, which can greatly simplify the debugging process. Terminyzer+ back-ends exist for the SILK system as well as for the open-source ${\cal F}$lora-2 system. A graphical interface has been developed for SILK and is currently underway for ${\cal F}$lora-2. We also report experimental studies, which confirm the effectiveness of Terminyzer+ on a host of large real-world knowledge bases. All tests used in this paper are available online.1

In addition, we make a step towards automatic remediation of non-terminating programs by proposing an algorithm that heuristically fixes some causes of misbehavior. Furthermore, unlike Terminyzer, Terminyzer+ does not require the underlying logic engine to support subgoal abstraction, although it can make use of it.

Our goal is to study the feasibility of porting termination analysis techniques developed for one programming paradigm to another paradigm. In this paper, we show how to adapt termination analysis techniques based on polynomial interpretations—very well known in the context of term rewrite systems—to obtain new (nontransformational) termination analysis techniques for definite logic programs (LPs). This leads to an approach that can be seen as a direct generalization of the traditional techniques in termination analysis of LPs, where linear norms and level mappings are used. Our extension generalizes these to arbitrary polynomials. We extend a number of standard concepts and results on termination analysis to the context of polynomial interpretations. We also propose a constraint-based approach for automatically generating polynomial interpretations that satisfy the termination conditions. Based on this approach, we implemented a new tool, called Polytool, for automatic termination analysis of LPs.

Refactoring is an established technique from the object-oriented (OO) programming community to restructure code: it aims at improving software readability, maintainability, and extensibility. Although refactoring is not tied to the OO-paradigm in particular, its ideas have not been applied to logic programming until now. This paper applies the ideas of refactoring to Prolog programs. A catalogue is presented listing refactorings classified according to scope. Some of the refactorings have been adapted from the OO-paradigm, while others have been specifically designed for Prolog. The discrepancy between intended and operational semantics in Prolog is also addressed by some of the refactorings. In addition, ViPReSS, a semi-automatic refactoring browser, is discussed and the experience with applying ViPReSS to a large Prolog legacy system is reported. The main conclusion is that refactoring is both a viable technique in Prolog and a rather desirable one.

This paper focuses on the inference of modes for which a logic program is guaranteed to terminate. This generalises traditional termination analysis where an analyser tries to verify termination for a specified mode. Our contribution is a methodology in which components of traditional termination analysis are combined with backwards analysis to obtain an analyser for termination inference. We identify a condition on the components of the analyser which guarantees that termination inference will infer all modes which can be checked to terminate. The application of this methodology to enhance a traditional termination analyser to perform also termination inference is demonstrated.

Recent years have witnessed an increasing interest in enhancing answer set solvers by allowing function symbols. Since the introduction of function symbols makes common inference tasks undecidable, research has focused on identifying classes of programs allowing only a restricted use of function symbols while ensuring decidability of common inference tasks. Finitely-ground programs, introduced in Calimeri et al. (2008), are guaranteed to admit a finite number of stable models with each of them of finite size. Stable models of such programs can be computed and thus common inference tasks become decidable. Unfortunately, checking whether a program is finitely-ground is semi-decidable. This has led to several decidable criteria, called termination criteria, providing sufficient conditions for a program to be finitely-ground. This paper presents a new technique that, used in conjunction with current termination criteria, allows us to detect more programs as finitely-ground. Specifically, the proposed technique takes a logic program ${\cal P}$ and transforms it into an adorned program ${{\cal P}}$μ with the aim of applying termination criteria to ${{\cal P}}$μ rather than ${\cal P}$. The transformation is sound in that if the adorned program satisfies a certain termination criterion, then the original program is finitely-ground. Importantly, applying termination criteria to adorned programs rather than the original ones strictly enlarges the class of programs recognized as finitely-ground.

We study the properties of input-consuming derivations of moded logic programs. Input-consuming derivations can be used to model the behavior of logic programs using dynamic scheduling and employing constructs such as delay declarations. We consider the class of nicely-moded programs and queries. We show that for these programs a weak version of the well-known switching lemma holds also for input-consuming derivations. Furthermore, we show that, under suitable conditions, there exists an algebraic characterization of termination of input-consuming derivations.

Constraint Handling Rules (CHRs) are a high-level rule-based programming language for specification and implementation of constraint solvers. CHR manipulates a global store representing a flat conjunction of constraints. By default, CHR does not support goals with a more complex propositional structure including disjunction, negation, etc., or CHR relies on the host system to provide such features. In this paper we introduce Satisfiability Modulo Constraint Handling Rules (SMCHR): a tight integration of CHR with a modern Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) solver for quantifier-free formulae with an arbitrary propositional structure. SMCHR is essentially a Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) solver where the theory T is implemented in CHR. The execution algorithm of SMCHR is based on lazy clause generation, where a new clause for the SAT solver is generated whenever a rule is applied. We shall also explore the practical aspects of building an SMCHR system, including extending a “built-in” constraint solver supporting equality with unification and justifications.

We present ABETS, an assertion-based, dynamic analyzer that helps diagnose errors in Maude programs. ABETS uses slicing to automatically create reduced versions of both a run's execution trace and executed program, reduced versions in which any information that is not relevant to the bug currently being diagnosed is removed. In addition, ABETS employs runtime assertion checking to automate the identification of bugs so that whenever an assertion is violated, the system automatically infers accurate slicing criteria from the failure. We summarize the main services provided by ABETS, which also include a novel assertion-based facility for program repair that generates suitable program fixes when a state invariant is violated. Finally, we provide an experimental evaluation that shows the performance and effectiveness of the system.

We have designed a new logic programming language called LM (Linear Meld) for programming graph-based algorithms in a declarative fashion. Our language is based on linear logic, an expressive logical system where logical facts can be consumed. Because LM integrates both classical and linear logic, LM tends to be more expressive than other logic programming languages. LM programs are naturally concurrent because facts are partitioned by nodes of a graph data structure. Computation is performed at the node level while communication happens between connected nodes. In this paper, we present the syntax and operational semantics of our language and illustrate its use through a number of examples.

Propositional formulas that are equivalent in intuitionistic logic, or in its extension known as the logic of here-and-there, have the same stable models. We extend this theorem to propositional formulas with infinitely long conjunctions and disjunctions and show how to apply this generalization to proving properties of aggregates in answer set programming.

Defeasible logics provide several linguistic features to support the expression of defeasible knowledge. There is also a wide variety of such logics, expressing different intuitions about defeasible reasoning. However, the logics can only combine in trivial ways. This limits their usefulness in contexts where different intuitions are at play in different aspects of a problem. In particular, in some legal settings, different actors have different burdens of proof, which might be expressed as reasoning in different defeasible logics. In this paper, we introduce annotated defeasible logic as a flexible formalism permitting multiple forms of defeasibility, and establish some properties of the formalism.

To be responsive to dynamically changing real-world environments, an intelligent agent needs to perform complex sequential decision-making tasks that are often guided by commonsense knowledge. The previous work on this line of research led to the framework called interleaved commonsense reasoning and probabilistic planning (icorpp), which used P-log for representing commmonsense knowledge and Markov Decision Processes (MDPs) or Partially Observable MDPs (POMDPs) for planning under uncertainty. A main limitation of icorpp is that its implementation requires non-trivial engineering efforts to bridge the commonsense reasoning and probabilistic planning formalisms. In this paper, we present a unified framework to integrate icorpp’s reasoning and planning components. In particular, we extend probabilistic action language pBC+ to express utility, belief states, and observation as in POMDP models. Inheriting the advantages of action languages, the new action language provides an elaboration tolerant representation of POMDP that reflects commonsense knowledge. The idea led to the design of the system pbcplus2pomdp, which compiles a pBC+ action description into a POMDP model that can be directly processed by off-the-shelf POMDP solvers to compute an optimal policy of the pBC+ action description. Our experiments show that it retains the advantages of icorpp while avoiding the manual efforts in bridging the commonsense reasoner and the probabilistic planner.