Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Most specific logic programs

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

More specific versions of definite logic programs are introduced. These are versions of a program in which each clause is further instantiated or removed and which have an equivalent set of successful derivations to those of the original program, but a possibly increased set of finitely failed goals. They are better than the original program because failure in a non-successful derivation may be detected more quickly. Furthermore, information about allowed variable bindings which is hidden in the original program may be made explicit in a more specific version of it. This allows better static analysis of the program's properties and may reveal errors in the original program. A program may have several more specific versions but there is always a most specific version which is unique up to variable renaming. Methods to calculate more specific versions are given and it is characterized when they give the most specific version.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. K. Clark, Negation as failure, in:Logic and Databases, H. Gallaire and J. Minker (eds.) (Plenum Press, New York, 1978) pp. 293–322.

    Google Scholar 

  2. N. Dershowitz, and Y. Lee, Deductive debugging,Proc. 4th IEEE Symp. on Logic Programming (IEEE Comp. Soc. Press, 1987) pp. 298–306.

  3. Y. Futamura, Partial Evaluation of Computation Process — An approach to a compiler-compiler, Systems, Computers, Controls 2, no. 5 (1971).

  4. T. Kanamori and K. Horiuchi, Type inference in Prolog and its application,Proc. IJCAI 85 (1985) 704–707.

    Google Scholar 

  5. H.J. Komorowski, Partial evaluation as a means for inferencing data structures in an applicative language: A theory and implementation in the case of Prolog,Proc. 9th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (1982) pp. 255–267.

  6. J.-L. Lassez, M.J. Maher, and K. Marriott, Unification revisited,Foundations of deductive databases and logic programming, J. Minker (ed.) (Morgan Kauffman, 1988).

  7. J.W. Lloyd,Foundations of Logic Programming (Springer-Verlag, 1984).

  8. K. Marriott, L. Naish, and J.-L. Lassez, Most specific logic programs,Proc. 5th Int. Conf. and Symp. on Logic Programming (MIT Press, 1988) pp. 909–923.

  9. K. Marriott and H. Søndergaard, Bottom-up abstract interpretation of logic programs,Proc. 5th Int. Conf. and Symp. on Logic Programming (MIT Press, 1988) pp. 733–748.

  10. C.S. Mellish, The automatic generation of mode declarations for Prolog programs, DAI Research Paper no. 163, Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh (1981).

  11. L. Naish, The MU-Prolog 3.2 reference manual, Tech. Rpt. 85/11, Computer Science Dept., University of Melbourne (1985).

  12. L. Naish, Automating control for logic programs, J. Logic Programming 2, no. 3 (1985) 167–183.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. L. Naish, Specification=program+types,Proc. 7th Conf. on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, LNCS 287 (Springer, 1987).

  14. L. Naish, Parallelizing NU-Prolog,Proc. 5th Int. Conf. and Symp. on Logic Programming (MIT Press, 1988) pp. 1546–1564.

  15. R. Reiter, On closed world databases, in:Logic and Databases, H. Gallaire and J. Minker (eds.) (Plenum Press, New York, 1978) pp. 55–76.

    Google Scholar 

  16. J.C. Reynolds, Transformational systems and the algebraic structure of atomic formulas, Machine Intelligence 5 (1970) 135–152.

    Google Scholar 

  17. T. Sato and H. Tamaki, Enumeration of success patterns in logic programs, Theoretical Comp. Sci. 34 (1984) 227–240.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. E.Y. Shapiro,Algorithmic Program Debugging (MIT Press, 1983).

  19. D.E. Smith, M.R. Genesereth, and M.L. Ginsberg, Controlling recursive inference, Artificial Intelligence 30 (1986) 343–389.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. A. Takeuchi and K. Furukawa, Partial evaluation of Prolog programs and its application to meta programming,IFIP '86 (North-Holland, 1986) pp. 279–282.

  21. D.H.D. Warren, An abstract Prolog instruction set, Technical Note 309, SRI International, Menlo Park (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  22. D.A. Wolfram, M.J. Maher, and J.-L. Lassez, A unified treatment of resolution strategies for logic programming,Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, Uppsala, Sweden (1984) pp. 263–276.

  23. R. Venken, A Prolog meta-interpreter for partial evaluation and its application to source-to-source transformation and query optimisation,Proc. of ECAI (1984).

  24. J. Zobel, Derivation of polymorphic types for Prolog programs,Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming (MIT Press, 1987) pp. 817–838.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, 10598, Yorktown Heights, New York, USA

    K. Marriott, L. Naish & J. -L. Lassez

  2. Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne, 3052, Parkville, Australia

    L. Naish

Authors
  1. K. Marriott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Naish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. -L. Lassez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marriott, K., Naish, L. & Lassez, J.L. Most specific logic programs. Ann Math Artif Intell 1, 303–338 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01531082

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01531082

Keywords

Search

Navigation