Confluence Modulo Equivalence in Constraint Handling Rules

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8981)

Abstract

Previous results on confluence for Constraint Handling Rules, CHR, are generalized to take into account user-defined state equivalence relations. This allows a much larger class of programs to enjoy the advantages of confluence, which include various optimization techniques and simplified correctness proofs. A new operational semantics for CHR is introduced that significantly reduces notational overhead and allows to consider confluence for programs with extra-logical and incomplete built-in predicates. Proofs of confluence are demonstrated for programs with redundant data representation, e.g., sets-as-lists, for dynamic programming algorithms with pruning as well as a Union-Find program, which are not covered by previous confluence notions for CHR.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdennadher, S.: Operational semantics and confluence of constraint propagation rules. In: Smolka, G. (ed.) CP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1330, pp. 252–266. Springer, Heidelberg (1997) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abdennadher, S., Frühwirth, T.W., Meuss, H.: On confluence ofconstraint handling rules. In: Freuder, E.C. (ed.) CP 1996. LNCS, vol. 1118, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (1996) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aho, A.V., Sethi, R., Ullman, J.D.: Code optimization and finite Church-Rosser systems. In: Rustin, R. (ed.) Design and Optimization of Compilers, pp. 89–106. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1972)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christiansen, H., Have, C.T., Lassen, O.T., Petit, M.: The Viterbi algorithm expressed in Constraint Handling Rules. In: Van Weert, P., De Koninck, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Constraint Handling Rules. Report CW 588, pp. 17–24. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duck, G.J., Stuckey, P.J., García de la Banda, M., Holzbaur, C.: The refined operational semantics of constraint handling rules. In: Bart, D., Vladimir, L. (eds.) ICLP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3132, pp. 90–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duck, G.J., Stuckey, P.J., Sulzmann, M.: Observable confluence for constraint handling rules. In: Dahl, V., Niemelä, I. (eds.) ICLP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4670, pp. 224–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Durbin, R., Eddy, S., Krogh, A., Mitchison, G.: Biological Sequence Analysis: Probabilistic Models of Proteins and Nucleic Acids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frühwirth, T.W.: Theory and practice of Constraint Handling Rules. J. Logic Progr. 37(1–3), 95–138 (1998)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frühwirth, T.W.: Constraint Handling Rules. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009) CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haemmerlé, R.: Diagrammatic confluence for Constraint Handling Rules. TPLP 12(4–5), 737–753 (2012)MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huet, G.P.: Confluent reductions: abstract properties and applications to term rewriting systems: abstract properties and applications to term rewriting systems. J. ACM 27(4), 797–821 (1980)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Langbein, J., Raiser, F., Frühwirth, T.W.: A state equivalence and confluence checker for CHRs. In: Weert, P.V., Koninck, L.D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Constraint Handling Rules. Report CW 588, pp. 1–8. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Newman, M.: On theories with a combinatorial definition of “equivalence”. Ann. Math. 43(2), 223–243 (1942)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raiser, F., Betz, H., Frühwirth, T.W.: Equivalence of CHR states revisited. In: Raiser, F., Sneyers, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Constraint Handling Rules, Report CW 555, pp. 33–48. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raiser, F., Tacchella, P.: On confluence of non-terminating CHR programs. In: Djelloul, K., Duck, G.J., Sulzmann, M. (eds.) CHR 2007, pp. 63–76. Porto, Portugal (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schrijvers, T., Frühwirth, T.W.: Analysing the CHR implementation of union-find. In: Wolf, A., Frühwirth, T.W., Meister, M. (eds.) W(C)LP. Ulmer Informatik-Berichte, vol. 2005-01, pp. 135–146. Universität Ulm, Ulm (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sethi, R.: Testing for the Church-Rosser property. J. ACM 21(4), 671–679 (1974)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sneyers, J., Weert, P.V., Schrijvers, T., Koninck, L.D.: As time goes by: Constraint Handling Rules. TPLP 10(1), 1–47 (2010)MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tarjan, R.E., van Leeuwen, J.: Worst-case analysis of set union algorithms. J. ACM 31(2), 245–281 (1984)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Viterbi, A.J.: Error bounds for convolutional codes and an asymptotically optimum decoding algorithm. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 13, 260–269 (1967)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research group PLIS: Programming, Logic and Intelligent Systems Department of Communication, Business and Information TechnologiesRoskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations