arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Włodzimierz Drabent

Publications and source records attributed to Włodzimierz Drabent.

16 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2025

On systematic construction of correct logic programs

Partial correctness of imperative or functional programming divides in logic programming into two notions. Correctness means that all answers of the program are compatible with the specification. Completeness means that the program produces all the answers required by the specifications. We also consider semi-completeness -- completeness for those queries for which the program does not diverge. This paper presents an approach to systematically construct provably correct and semi-complete logic programs, for a given specification. Normal programs are considered, under Kunen's 3-valued completion semantics (of negation as finite failure) and the well-founded semantics (of negation as possibly infinite failure). The approach is declarative, it abstracts from details of operational semantics, like e.g.\ the form of the selected literals (``procedure calls'') during the computation. The proposed method is simple, and can be used (maybe informally) in actual everyday programming.

cs.LO↗
arXiv2023

On Feasibility of Declarative Diagnosis

The programming language Prolog makes declarative programming possible, at least to a substantial extent. Programs may be written and reasoned about in terms of their declarative semantics. All the advantages of declarative programming are however lost when it comes to program debugging. This is because the Prolog debugger is based solely on the operational semantics. Declarative methods of diagnosis (i.e. locating errors in programs) exist, but are neglected. This paper discusses their possibly main weaknesses and shows how to overcome them. We argue that useful ways of declarative diagnosis of logic programs exist, and should be usable in actual programming.

cs.LO↗
arXiv2023

Implementing backjumping by means of exception handling

We discuss how to implement backjumping (or intelligent backtracking) in Prolog by using the built-ins throw/1 and catch/3. We show that it is impossible in a general case, contrary to a claim that ``backjumping is exception handling". We provide two solutions. One works for binary programs; in a general case it imposes a restriction on where backjumping may originate. The other restricts the class of backjump targets. We also discuss implementing backjumping by using backtracking and the Prolog database. Additionally, we explain the semantics of Prolog exception handling in the presence of coroutining.

cs.PL↗
arXiv2023

A note on occur-check (extended report)

We weaken the notion of "not subject to occur-check" (NSTO), on which most known results on avoiding the occur-check in logic programming are based. NSTO means that unification is performed only on such pairs of atoms for which the occur-check never succeeds in any run of a nondeterministic unification algorithm. Here we show that "any run" can be weakened to "some run". We present some related sufficient conditions under which the occur-check may be safely omitted. We show examples for which the proposed approach provides more general results than the approaches based on well-moded and nicely moded programs (this includes cases to which the latter approaches are inapplicable). We additionally present a sufficient condition based on NSTO, working for arbitrary selection rules.

cs.LO↗
arXiv2022

Implementing backjumping by throw/1 and catch/3 of Prolog

We discuss how to implement backjumping (or intelligent backtracking) in Prolog programs by means of exception handling. This seems impossible in a general case. We provide two solutions. One works for binary programs; in a general case it imposes a restriction on where backjumping may originate. The other restricts a class of backjump targets. We also show how to simulate backjumping by means of backtracking and the Prolog database.

cs.PL↗
arXiv2021

A Note on Occur-Check

Most known results on avoiding the occur-check are based on the notion of "not subject to occur-check" (NSTO). It means that unification is performed only on such pairs of atoms for which the occur-check never succeeds in any run of a nondeterministic unification algorithm. Here we show that this requirement is too strong. We show how to weaken it, and present some related sufficient conditions under which the occur-check may be safely omitted. We show examples for which the proposed approach provides more general results than the approaches based on well-moded and nicely moded programs (this includes cases to which the latter approaches are inapplicable).

cs.LO↗
arXiv2021

S-semantics -- an example

The s-semantics makes it possible to explicitly deal with variables in program answers. So it seems suitable for programs using nonground data structures, like open lists. However it is difficult to find published examples of using the s-semantics to reason about particular programs. Here we apply s-semantics to prove correctness and completeness of Frühwirth's $n$ queens program. This is compared with a proof, published elsewhere, based on the standard semantics and Herbrand interpretations.

cs.LO↗
arXiv2021

On correctness and completeness of an n queens program

Thom Frühwirth presented a short, elegant and efficient Prolog program for the n queens problem. However the program may be seen as rather tricky and one may not be convinced about its correctness. This paper explains the program in a declarative way, and provides proofs of its correctness and completeness. The specification and the proofs are declarative, i.e. they abstract from any operational semantics. The specification is approximate, it is unnecessary to describe the program's semantics exactly. Despite the program works on non-ground terms, this work employs the standard semantics, based on logical consequence and Herbrand interpretations. Another purpose of the paper is to present an example of precise declarative reasoning about the semantics of a logic program. Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).

cs.LO↗
arXiv2021

SLD-resolution without occur-check, an example

We prove that the occur-check is not needed for a certain definite clause logic program, independently from the selection rule. First we prove that the program is occur-check free. Then we consider a more general class of queries, under which the program is not occur-check free; however we show that it will be correctly executed under Prolog without occur-check. The main result of this report states that the occur-check may be skipped for the cases in which a single run of a standard nondeterministic unification algorithm does not fail due to the occur-check. The usual approaches are based on the notion of NSTO (not subject to occur-check), which considers all the runs. To formulate the result, it was necessary to introduce an abstraction of a "unification" algorithm without the occur-check.

cs.LO↗
arXiv2020

On correctness of an n queens program

Thom Frühwirth presented a short, elegant and efficient Prolog program for the n queens problem. However the program may be seen as rather tricky and one may be not convinced about its correctness. This paper explains the program in a declarative way, and provides proofs of its correctness and completeness. The specification and the proofs are declarative, i.e. they abstract from any operational semantics. The specification is approximate, it is unnecessary to describe the program's semantics exactly. Despite the program works on non-ground terms, this work employs the standard semantics, based on logical consequence and Herbrand interpretations. Another purpose of the paper is to present an example of precise declarative reasoning about the semantics of a logic program.

cs.LO↗
arXiv2020

The Prolog Debugger and Declarative Programming. Examples

This paper contains examples for a companion paper "The Prolog Debugger and Declarative Programming", which discusses (in)adequacy of the Prolog debugger for declarative programming. Logic programming is a declarative programming paradigm. Programming language Prolog makes logic programming possible, at least to a substantial extent. However the Prolog debugger works solely in terms of the operational semantics. So it is incompatible with declarative programming. The companion paper tries to find methods of using it from the declarative point of view. Here we provide examples of applying them.

cs.PL↗
arXiv2020

The Prolog debugger and declarative programming

Logic programming is a declarative programming paradigm. Programming language Prolog makes logic programming possible, at least to a substantial extent. However the Prolog debugger works solely in terms of the operational semantics. So it is incompatible with declarative programming. This report discusses this issue and tries to find how the debugger may be used from the declarative point of view. The results are rather not encouraging. Also, the box model of Byrd, used by the debugger, is explained in terms of SLD-resolution.

cs.PL↗
arXiv2017

Logic + control: On program construction and verification

This paper presents an example of formal reasoning about the semantics of a Prolog program of practical importance (the SAT solver of Howe and King). The program is treated as a definite clause logic program with added control. The logic program is constructed by means of stepwise refinement, hand in hand with its correctness and completeness proofs. The proofs are declarative - they do not refer to any operational semantics. Each step of the logic program construction follows a systematic approach to constructing programs which are provably correct and complete. We also prove that correctness and completeness of the logic program is preserved in the final Prolog program. Additionally, we prove termination, occur-check freedom and non-floundering. Our example shows how dealing with "logic" and with "control" can be separated. Most of the proofs can be done at the "logic" level, abstracting from any operational semantics. The example employs approximate specifications; they are crucial in simplifying reasoning about logic programs. It also shows that the paradigm of semantics-preserving program transformations may be not sufficient. We suggest considering transformations which preserve correctness and completeness with respect to an approximate specification.

cs.LO↗
arXiv2016

Proving completeness of logic programs with the cut

Completeness of a logic program means that the program produces all the answers required by its specification. The cut is an important construct of programming language Prolog. It prunes part of the search space, this may result in a loss of completeness. This paper proposes a way of proving completeness of programs with the cut. The semantics of the cut is formalized by describing how SLD-trees are pruned. A sufficient condition for completeness is presented, proved sound, and illustrated by examples.

cs.LO↗
arXiv2015

Correctness and completeness of logic programs

We discuss proving correctness and completeness of definite clause logic programs. We propose a method for proving completeness, while for proving correctness we employ a method which should be well known but is often neglected. Also, we show how to prove completeness and correctness in the presence of SLD-tree pruning, and point out that approximate specifications simplify specifications and proofs. We compare the proof methods to declarative diagnosis (algorithmic debugging), showing that approximate specifications eliminate a major drawback of the latter. We argue that our proof methods reflect natural declarative thinking about programs, and that they can be used, formally or informally, in every-day programming.

cs.LO↗