Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userConfluence Modulo Equivalence with Invariants in Constraint Handling Rules
125
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Daniel Gall
Publication date
2018
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Confluence denotes the property of a state transition system that states can be rewritten in more than one way yielding the same result. Although it is a desirable property, confluence is often too strict in practical applications because it also considers states that can never be reached in practice. Additionally, sometimes states that have the same semantics in the practical context are considered as different states due to different syntactic representations. By introducing suitable invariants and equivalence relations on the states, programs may have the property to be confluent modulo the equivalence relation w.r.t. the invariant which often is desirable in practice. In this paper, a sufficient and necessary criterion for confluence modulo equivalence w.r.t. an invariant for Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) is presented. It is the first approach that covers invariant-based confluence modulo equivalence for the de facto standard semantics of CHR. There is a trade-off between practical applicability and the simplicity of proving a confluence property. Therefore, a better manageable subset of equivalence relations has been identified that allows for the proposed confluence criterion and and simplifies the confluence proofs by using well established CHR analysis methods.
rate research
Read More
Computational psychology has the aim to explain human cognition by computational models of cognitive processes. The cognitive architecture ACT-R is popular to develop such models. Although ACT-R has a well-defined psychological theory and has been used to explain many cognitive processes, there are two problems that make it hard to reason formally about its cognitive models: First, ACT-R lacks a formalization of its underlying production rule system and secondly, there are many different implementations and extensions of ACT-R with technical artifacts complicating formal reasoning even more. This paper describes a formal operational semantics - the very abstract semantics - that abstracts from as many technical details as possible keeping it open to extensions and different implementations of the ACT-R theory. In a second step, this semantics is refined to define some of its abstract features that are found in many implementations of ACT-R - the abstract semantics. It concentrates on the procedural core of ACT-R and is suitable for analysis of the transition system since it still abstracts from details like timing, the sub-symbolic layer or conflict resolution. Furthermore, a translation of ACT-R models to the programming language Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) is defined. This makes the abstract semantics an executable specification of ACT-R. CHR has been used successfully to embed other rule-based formalisms like graph transformation systems or functional programming. There are many results and tools that support formal reasoning about and analysis of CHR programs. The translation of ACT-R models to CHR is proven sound and complete w.r.t. the abstract operational semantics of ACT-R. This paves the way to analysis of ACT-R models through CHR. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge, our abstract semantics is the first formulation of ACT-R suitable for both analysis and execution.
The most advanced implementation of adaptive constraint processing with Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) allows the application of intelligent search strategies to solve Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSP). This presentation compares an improved version of conflict-directed backjumping and two variants of dynamic backtracking with respect to chronological backtracking on some of the AIM instances which are a benchmark set of random 3-SAT problems. A CHR implementation of a Boolean constraint solver combined with these different search strategies in Java is thus being compared with a CHR implementation of the same Boolean constraint solver combined with chronological backtracking in SICStus Prolog. This comparison shows that the addition of ``intelligence to the search process may reduce the number of search steps dramatically. Furthermore, the runtime of their Java implementations is in most cases faster than the implementations of chronological backtracking. More specifically, conflict-directed backjumping is even faster than the SICStus Prolog implementation of chronological backtracking, although our Java implementation of CHR lacks the optimisations made in the SICStus Prolog system. To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).
A coherent presentation of an n-category is a presentation by generators, relations and relations among relations. Completions of presentations by rewriting systems give coherent presentations, whose relations among relations are generated by confluence diagrams induced by critical branchings. This article extends this construction to presentations by polygraphs defined modulo a set of relations. Our coherence results are formulated using the structure of n-category enriched in double groupoids, whose horizontal cells represent rewriting sequences, vertical cells represent the congruence generated by relations modulo and square cells represent coherence cells induced by confluence modulo. We illustrate these constructions for rewriting modulo commutation relations in monoids and isotopy relations in pivotal monoidal categories.
Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) is a declarative rule-based formalism and language. Concurrency is inherent as rules can be applied to subsets of constraints in parallel. Parallel implementations of CHR, be it in software, be it in hardware, use different execution strategies for parallel execution of CHR programs depending on the implementation language. In this report, our goal is to analyze parallel execution of CHR programs from a more general conceptual perspective. We want to experimentally see what is possible when CHR programs are automatically parallelized. For this purpose, a sequential simulation of parallel CHR execution is used to systematically encode different parallel execution strategies. In exhaustive experiments on some typical examples from the literature, parallel and sequential execution can be compared to each other. The number of processors can be bounded or unbounded for a more theoretical analysis. As a result, some preliminary but indicative observations on the influence of the execution strategy can be made for the different problem classes and in general.
Orthogonality is a discipline of programming that in a syntactic manner guarantees determinism of functional specifications. Essentially, orthogonality avoids, on the one side, the inherent ambiguity of non determinism, prohibiting the existence of different rules that specify the same function and that may apply simultaneously (non-ambiguity), and, on the other side, it eliminates the possibility of occurrence of repetitions of variables in the left-hand side of these rules (left linearity). In the theory of term rewriting systems (TRSs) determinism is captured by the well-known property of confluence, that basically states that whenever different computations or simplifications from a term are possible, the computed answers should coincide. Although the proofs are technically elaborated, confluence is well-known to be a consequence of orthogonality. Thus, orthogonality is an important mathematical discipline intrinsic to the specification of recursive functions that is naturally applied in functional programming and specification. Starting from a formalization of the theory of TRSs in the proof assistant PVS, this work describes how confluence of orthogonal TRSs has been formalized, based on axiomatizations of properties of rules, positions and substitutions involved in parallel steps of reduction, in this proof assistant. Proofs for some similar but restricted properties such as the property of confluence of non-ambiguous and (left and right) linear TRSs have been fully formalized.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
