Logical Algorithms

  • Harald Ganzinger
  • David McAllester
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2401)


It is widely accepted that many algorithms can be concisely and clearly expressed as logical inference rules. However, logic programming has been inappropriate for the study of the running time of algorithms because there has not been a clear and precise model of the run time of a logic program. We present a logic programming model of computation appropriate for the study of the run time of a wide variety of algorithms.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Weidong Chen and David S. Warren. Tabled evaluation with delaying for general logic programs. Journal of the ACM, 43(1):20–74, 1996.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    H. Ganzinger and D. McAllester. A new meta-complexity theorem for bottom-up logic programs. In Proc. International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning, volume 2083 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 514–528. Springer-Verlag, 2001.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Michael Gelfond and Vladimir Lifschitz. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Robert A. Kowalski and Kenneth Bowen, editors, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 1070–1080, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1988. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kolaitis. The expressive power of stratified logic programs. INFCTRL: Information and Computation (formerly Information and Control), 90, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    David McAllester. The complexity analysis of static analyses. In Symposium on Static Analysis. Springer Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jeff Naughton and Raghu Ramakrishnan. Bottom-up evaluation of logic programs. In Jean-Louis Lassez and Gordon Plotkin, editors, Computational Logic. MIT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jeff Polakow. Ordered linear logic and applications, 2001. Ph.D. Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. Przymusinski. the declarative semantics of stratified deductive databases and logic programs, 1988.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Sagonas, T. Swift, and D. S. Warren. Xsb as an efficient deductive database engine. In Proc. of the 1994 ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data (SIGMOD’94), 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Tamaki and T. Sato. Old resolution with tabulation. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Logic Programming, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Ullman. Bottom-up beats top-down for datalog. In Proceedings of the Eigth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on the Principles of Database Systems, pages 140–149, March 1989.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jeffrey Ullman and Raghu Ramakrishnan. A survey of research in deductive database systems. J. Logic Programming, pages 125–149, May 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Vardi. Complexity of relational query languages. In 14th Symposium on Theory of Computation, pages 137–146, 1982.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yan Zhang and Norman Y. Foo. Towards generalized rule-based updates. In IJCAI-97, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harald Ganzinger
    • 1
  • David McAllester
    • 2
  1. 1.MPI InformatikSaarbrückenGermany
  2. 2.AT&T Labs-ResearchUSA

Personalised recommendations