Some results on the complexity of SLD-derivations

  • Armando B. Matos
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 727)


In this paper we consider a few simple classes of definite programs and goals and study the problem of deciding whether a given goal has a successful SLD-derivation (the SUCCESS problem). Although the problem is always decidable for the classes studied, it turns out to be NP-complete even for some very simple classes.

The transition between two specific classes of pairs of logic programs and goals (classes C2 and C3) is studied in detail by considering a number of intermediate classes. Some of these belong to the complexity class P while others are NP-Complete. This transition seems to be quite “erratic” in the sense that there is apparently no simple property of the class in consideration that corresponds to NP-hardness.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. Amihud and Y. Choueka. Loop programs and polinomially computable functions. International Journal of Computer Mathematics, Section A, 9:195–205, 1981.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    John C., Cherniavsky. Simple programs realize exactly Presburger formulas. SIAM Journal on Computing, 5:666–677, 1976.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arthur Delcher and Simon Kasif. Some results on the complexity of exploiting data dependency in parallel logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 6:229–241, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thomas Eiter and Georg Gottob. Complexity results for logic-based abdunction. In Informal Proceedings of the Workshop on Structural Complexity and Recursion-Theoretic Methods in Logic programming, pages 438–449, Washigton DC, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Michael Garey and David S. Johnson. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. Freeman, San Francisco, 1979.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frank Harary. Graph Theory. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1969.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. A. R. Hoare and D. C. S. Allison. Incomputability. Computing Surveys, 4:169–178, 1972.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Meyer and D. Ritchie. The complexity of loop programs. In Proceedings of the 22nd National Conference of the ACM, pages 465–469, Washington, 1967.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    John Schlipf. The expressive power of the logic programming semantics. Technical Report CIS-TR-90-3, Computer Science Departement, University of Cincinnati, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    John Schlipf. A survey of complexity and undecidability results in logic programming. Technical Report CIS-TR-92-4, Computer Science Departement, University of Cincinnati, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. J. Stockmeyer. The polynomial hierarchy. Theoretical Computer Science, 3:1–22, 1976.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Armando B. Matos
    • 1
  1. 1.LIACCUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations