Probabilistic Termination of CHRiSM Programs

  • Jon Sneyers
  • Danny De Schreye
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7225)

Abstract

Termination analysis has received considerable attention in Logic Programming for several decades. In recent years, probabilistic extensions of Logic Programming languages have become increasingly important. Languages like PRISM, CP-Logic, ProbLog, and CHRiSM have been introduced and proved very useful for addressing problems in which a combination of logical and probabilistic reasoning is required. As far as we know, the termination of probabilistic logical programs has not received any attention in the community so far.

Termination of a probabilistic program is not a crisp notion. Given a query, such a program does not simply either terminate or not terminate, but it terminates with a certain probability.

In this paper, we explore this problem in the context of CHRiSM, a probabilistic extension of CHR. We formally introduce the notion of probabilistic termination. We study this concept on the basis of a number of case studies. We provide some initial sufficient conditions to characterize probabilistically terminating programs and queries. We also discuss some challenging examples that reveal the complexity and interest of more general settings. The paper is intended as a first step in a challenging and important new area in the analysis of Logic Programs.

Keywords

Termination Analysis Probabilistic LP Constraint Handling Rules 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdennadher, S.: A language for experimenting with declarative paradigms. In: Frühwirth, T., et al. (eds.) RCoRP 2000, bis (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abdennadher, S., Rigotti, C.: Automatic generation of CHR constraint solvers. TPLP 5(4-5), 403–418 (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Apt, K.R., Pedreschi, D.: Reasoning about termination of pure Prolog programs. Inf. Comput. 106(1), 109–157 (1993)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bournez, O., Garnier, F.: Proving Positive Almost Sure Termination Under Strategies. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) RTA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4098, pp. 357–371. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bournez, O., Kirchner, C.: Probabilistic Rewrite Strategies. Applications to ELAN. In: Tison, S. (ed.) RTA 2002. LNCS, vol. 2378, pp. 252–266. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Raedt, L., Kimmig, A., Toivonen, H.: ProbLog: A probabilistic Prolog and its application in link discovery. In: IJCAI, pp. 2462–2467 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Decorte, S., De Schreye, D., Vandecasteele, H.: Constraint-based automatic termination analysis of logic programs. ACM TOPLAS 21(6), 1137–1195 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frühwirth, T.: Proving Termination of Constraint Solver Programs. In: Apt, K.R., Kakas, A.C., Monfroy, E., Rossi, F. (eds.) Compulog Net WS 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1865, pp. 298–317. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frühwirth, T.: Constraint Handling Rules. Cambridge University Press (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frühwirth, T., Di Pierro, A., Wiklicky, H.: Probabilistic Constraint Handling Rules. In: Comini, M., Falaschi, M. (eds.) WFLP 2002. ENTCS, vol. 76. Elsevier (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frühwirth, T., Raiser, F. (eds.): Constraint Handling Rules: Compilation, Execution, and Analysis. Books on Demand GmbH, Norderstedt (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giesl, J., Thiemann, R., Schneider-Kamp, P., Falke, S.: Mechanizing and improving dependency pairs. J. Autom. Reasoning 37(3), 155–203 (2006)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hurd, J.: A Formal Approach to Probabilistic Termination. In: Carreño, V.A., Muñoz, C.A., Tahar, S. (eds.) TPHOLs 2002. LNCS, vol. 2410, pp. 230–245. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leuschel, M., Martens, B., De Schreye, D.: Controlling generalization amd polyvariance in partial deduction of normal logic programs. ACM TOPLAS 20(1), 208–258 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lindenstrauss, N., Sagiv, Y., Serebrenik, A.: Proving Termination for Logic Programs by the Query-Mapping Pairs Approach. In: Bruynooghe, M., Lau, K.-K. (eds.) Program Development in CL. LNCS, vol. 3049, pp. 453–498. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martens, B., De Schreye, D., Bruynooghe, M.: Sound and complete partial deduction with unfolding based on well-founded measures. In: FGCS, pp. 473–480 (1992)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mesnard, F., Bagnara, R.: cTI: A constraint-based termination inference tool for ISO-Prolog. TPLP 5(1-2), 243–257 (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mesnard, F., Ruggieri, S.: On proving left termination of constraint logic programs. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 4(2), 207–259 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Monniaux, D.: An Abstract Analysis of the Probabilistic Termination of Programs. In: Cousot, P. (ed.) SAS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2126, pp. 111–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nguyen, M.T., Giesl, J., Schneider-Kamp, P., De Schreye, D.: Termination Analysis of Logic Programs Based on Dependency Graphs. In: King, A. (ed.) LOPSTR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4915, pp. 8–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nguyen, M.T., De Schreye, D., Giesl, J., Schneider-Kamp, P.: Polytool: polynomial interpretations as a basis for termination analysis of logic programs. TPLP 11, 33–63 (2011)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pilozzi, P., De Schreye, D.: Termination Analysis of CHR Revisited. In: Garcia de la Banda, M., Pontelli, E. (eds.) ICLP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5366, pp. 501–515. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pilozzi, P., De Schreye, D.: Automating Termination Proofs for CHR. In: Hill, P.M., Warren, D.S. (eds.) ICLP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5649, pp. 504–508. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sato, T.: A glimpse of symbolic-statistical modeling by PRISM. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 31, 161–176 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schneider-Kamp, P., Giesl, J., Ströder, T., et al.: Automated termination analysis for logic programs with cut. TPLP 10(4-6), 365–381 (2010)MATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sneyers, J., Meert, W., Vennekens, J., Kameya, Y., Sato, T.: CHR(PRISM)-based probabilistic logic learning. TPLP 10(4-6) (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sneyers, J., Van Weert, P., Schrijvers, T., De Koninck, L.: As time goes by: Constraint Handling Rules — a survey of CHR research between 1998 and 2007. TPLP 10(1), 1–47 (2010)MATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ströder, T., Emmes, F., Schneider-Kamp, P., Giesl, J., Fuhs, C.: A Linear Operational Semantics for Termination and Complexity Analysis of ISO Prolog. In: Vidal, G. (ed.) LOPSTR 2011. LNCS, vol. 7225, pp. 235–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vidal, G.: A Hybrid Approach to Conjunctive Partial Evaluation of Logic Programs. In: Alpuente, M. (ed.) LOPSTR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6564, pp. 200–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Voets, D., De Schreye, D., Pilozzi, P.: A new approach to termination analysis of constraint handling rules. In: LOPSTR, pp. 28–42 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jon Sneyers
    • 1
  • Danny De Schreye
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceK.U. LeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations