Formal Aspects of Computing

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 401–421 | Cite as

On dual programs in co-logic programming and the Horn \({\mu}\)-calculus

Original Article
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

We consider some extensions of co-logic programming and study its relationship with the Horn \({\mu}\)-calculus by Charatonik et al. We first consider negation elimination (NE), a familiar technique of program transformation, for co-logic programs. Given a program P, NE derives its dual program \({P^{\ast}}\) which defines the “complement” of P. When we apply NE to co-logic programs with negation, we show that the stratification restriction, a syntactic condition imposed on co-logic programs, becomes too restrictive in general, and that the Horn \({\mu}\)-calculus can be used as an extension of co-logic programming for handling “non-stratified” co-logic programs. We then consider some applications of non-stratified co-logic programs to the well-founded semantics (WFS) and Answer Set Programming. In particular, we give new iterated fixpoint characterizations of the WFS as well as answer sets via dual programs. We also discuss some applications of non-stratified co-logic programs to program transformation such as partial deduction, and a proof procedure for the WFS.

Keywords

Co-logic programming Dual programs The Horn \({\mu}\)-calculus Answer set programming (ASP) The well-founded semantics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AD94.
    Aravindan C, Dung PM (1994) Partial deduction of logic programs wrt well-founded semantics. New Gener Comput 13(1): 45–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. APS04.
    Alferes JJ, Pereira LM, Swift T (2004) Abduction in well-founded semantics and generalized stable models via tabled dual programs. Theory Pract Logic Program 4: 383–428MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Apt90.
    Apt KR (1990) Introduction to logic programming. In: Handbook of theoretical computer science, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 493–576Google Scholar
  4. CGP99.
    Clarke EM, Grumberg O, Peled DA (1999) Model checking. MIT Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Cha88.
    Chan D (1988) Constructive negation based on the completed database. In: Proceeding of 5th international conference and symposium on logic programming, MIT Press, New York, pp 111–125Google Scholar
  6. CMN+98.
    Charatonik W, McAllester D, Niwinski D, Podelski A, Walukiewicz I (1998) The Horn Mu-calculus. In: LICS ’98, IEEE Computer Society, pp 58–69Google Scholar
  7. Col82.
    Colmerauer A (1982) Prolog and infinite trees. In: Clark KL, Tarnlund SA (eds), Logic programming, Academic Press, New York, pp 231–251.Google Scholar
  8. CW93.
    Chen W, Warren DS (1993) Query evaluation under the well-founded semantics. In: Proceeding of the 12th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART symposium on principles of database systems, PODS ’93, pp 168–179Google Scholar
  9. DBV12.
    Denecker M, Bruynooghe M, Vennekens J (2012) Approximation fixpoint theory and the semantics of logic and answers set programs. In: Correct reasoning, volume 7265 of LNCS, Springer, New York, pp 178–194Google Scholar
  10. Far02.
    Farwer B (2002) \({\omega }\)-automata. In: Automata logics, and infinite games, volume 2500 of LNCS, Springer, New York, pp 3–21Google Scholar
  11. Fit02.
    Fitting M (2002) Fixpoint semantics for logic programming a survey. Theor Comput Sci 278(1–2): 25–51MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. GBM+07.
    Gupta G, Bansal A, Min R, Simon L, Mallya A (2007) Coinductive logic programming and its applications. In: ICLP’07, volume 4670 of LNCS, Springer, New York, pp 27–44Google Scholar
  13. GL88.
    Gelfond M, Lifschitz V (1988) The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Proceeding of 5th international conference and symposium on logic programming, MIT Press, New York, pp 1070–1080Google Scholar
  14. GSDM11.
    Gupta G, Saeedloei N, DeVries B, Min R (2011) Infinite computation, co-induction and computational logic. In: CALCO’11, Springer, New York, pp 40–54Google Scholar
  15. JS86.
    Jaffar J, Stuckey P (1986) Semantics of infinite tree logic programming. Theor Comput Sci 46: 141–158MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Klu09.
    Jaffar J, Stuckey P (1986) Semantics of infinite tree logic programming. http://www.utdallas.edu/~gupta/meta.html
  17. Llo87.
    Lloyd JW (1987) Foundations of logic programming, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. LS91.
    Lloyd JW, Shepherdson JC (1991) Partial evaluation in logic programming. J Logic Program 11(3–4): 217–242MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. MBMG12.
    Marple K, Bansal A, Min R, Gupta G (2012) Goal-directed execution of answer set programs. In: PPDP’12, pp 35–44Google Scholar
  20. MBMG14.
    Marple K, Bansal A, Min R, Gupta G (2014) Dynamic consistency checking in goal-directed answer set programming. Theory Pract Logic Program 14(4–5): 415–427MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Min10.
    Min R (2010) Predicate answer set programming with coinduction. PhD thesis, University of Texas at DallasGoogle Scholar
  22. Prz89.
    Przymusinski TC (1989) Every logic program has a natural stratification and an iterated least fixed point model. In: Proceedings of 8th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on principles of database systems, pp 11–21Google Scholar
  23. PS12.
    Pereira LM, Saptawijaya A (2012) Abductive logic programming with tabled abduction. In: Proceedings of ICSEA 2012, the 7th International conference on software engineering advances, pp 548–556Google Scholar
  24. Ros89.
    Ross KA (1989) A procedural semantics for well founded negation in logic programs. In: Proceedings of 8th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on principles of database systems, pp 22–33Google Scholar
  25. Sek12.
    Seki H (2012) Proving properties of co-logic programs by unfold/fold transformations. In: LOPSTR’11, volume 7225 of LNCS, pp 205–220 Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Sek13.
    Seki H (2013) Proving properties of co-logic programs with negation by program transformations. In: LOPSTR’12, volume 7844 of LNCS, pp 213–227, Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Sek14.
    Seki H (2014) Extending co-logic programs for branching-time model checking. In: LOPSTR’13, volume 8901 of LNCS, pp 127–144. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Sek16.
    Seki H (2016) On dual programs in co-logic programming. In: LOPSTR’15, volume 9527 of LNCS, pp 1–15, Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Sim06.
    Simon LE (2006) Extending logic programming with coinduction. PhD thesis, University of Texas at DallasGoogle Scholar
  30. SMBG06.
    Simon L, Mallya A, Bansal A, Gupta G (2006) Coinductive logic programming. In: ICLP’06, volume 4079 of LNCS, pages 330–344. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  31. SP13.
    Saptawijaya A, Pereira LM (2013) Tabled abduction in logic programs. Theor Pract Logic Program 13: 4–5Google Scholar
  32. ST84.
    Sato T, Tamaki H (1984) Transformational logic program synthesis. In: FGCS’84, Tokyo, pp 195–201Google Scholar
  33. VG89.
    Van Gelder A (1989) The alternating fixpoint of logic programs with negation. In: Proceedings of 8th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on principles of database systems, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  34. VGRS88.
    Van Gelder A, Ross K, Schlipf JS (1988) Unfounded sets and well-founded semantics for general logic programs. In: Proceeding of 7th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on principles of database systems, pp 211–230Google Scholar
  35. WSTL12.
    Wielemaker J, Schrijvers T, Triska M, Lager T (2012) SWI-Prolog. Theory Pract Logic Program 12(1–2): 67–96MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© British Computer Society 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceNagoya Institute of TechnologyShowa-kuJapan

Personalised recommendations