Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

The Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 1996: Volume 29 , Issue Index. Digitized from IA1652909-05 . Previous issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_1996-09_28_3 . Next issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_1996_29_contents .

The Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 1996: Volume 29 , Issue Index. Digitized from IA1652909-05 . Previous issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_1996-09_28_3 . Next issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_1996_29_contents .

The initial version of PRISM uses a simulation of the ZMOB hardware, and has been fully tested and debugged. In addition, several enhancements were made to PRISM to permit experimental analyses to be made, and to incorporate additional features to take full advantage of parallelism in a problem solving environment. Tracing and a statistical gathering package were added to permit experimental analysis. An AND-parallelism capability was added to achieve a second version of the PRISM system, and other features were added to the system to more fully exploit parallelism. Preliminary application and evaluation studies were performed.

This paper addresses semantic and expressiveness issues for temporal logic programming and in particular for the TEMPLOG language proposed by Abadi and Manna. Two equivalent formulations of TEMPLOG's declarative semantics are given: in terms of a minimal Herbrand model and in terms of a least fixpoint. By relating these semantics to TEMPLOG's operational semantics, we prove the completeness of the resolution proof system underlying TEMPLOG's execution mechanism. To study TEMPLOG's expressiveness, we consider its propositional version. We show how propositional TEMPLOG programs can be translated into a temporal fixpoint calculus and prove that they can express essentially all regular properties of sequences.

The Journal of Logic Programming 1985: Volume 2 , Issue CONTENTS. Digitized from IA1652909-07 . Previous issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_1985_2_index . Next issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_1985-04_2_1 .

The Journal of Logic Programming 1989: Volume 7 , Issue CONTENTS. Digitized from IA1652909-07 . Previous issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_1989_7_index . Next issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_1989-07_7_1 .

The Journal of Logic Programming 1992: Volume 12 , Issue CONTENTS. Digitized from IA1652909-07 . Previous issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_1992_12_index . Next issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_1992-01_12_1-2 .

The Journal of Logic Programming 1994: Volume 19-20 , Issue Index. Digitized from IA1652909-07 . Previous issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_1994-04_18_3 . Next issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_1994_19-20_contents .

45 p. 28 cm

45 p. 28 cm

Includes index

my

my

Model counting is the problem of computing the number of models that satisfy a given propositional theory. It has recently been applied to solving inference tasks in probabilistic logic programming, where the goal is to compute the probability of given queries being true provided a set of mutually independent random variables, a model (a logic program) and some evidence. The core of solving this inference task involves translating the logic program to a propositional theory and using a model counter. In this paper, we show that for some problems that involve inductive definitions like reachability in a graph, the translation of logic programs to SAT can be expensive for the purpose of solving inference tasks. For such problems, direct implementation of stable model semantics allows for more efficient solving. We present two implementation techniques, based on unfounded set detection, that extend a propositional model counter to a stable model counter. Our experiments show that for particular problems, our approach can outperform a state-of-the-art probabilistic logic programming solver by several orders of magnitude in terms of running time and space requirements, and can solve instances of significantly larger sizes on which the current solver runs out of time or memory.

Model counting is the problem of computing the number of models that satisfy a given propositional theory. It has recently been applied to solving inference tasks in probabilistic logic programming, where the goal is to compute the probability of given queries being true provided a set of mutually independent random variables, a model (a logic program) and some evidence. The core of solving this inference task involves translating the logic program to a propositional theory and using a model counter. In this paper, we show that for some problems that involve inductive definitions like reachability in a graph, the translation of logic programs to SAT can be expensive for the purpose of solving inference tasks. For such problems, direct implementation of stable model semantics allows for more efficient solving. We present two implementation techniques, based on unfounded set detection, that extend a propositional model counter to a stable model counter. Our experiments show that for particular problems, our approach can outperform a state-of-the-art probabilistic logic programming solver by several orders of magnitude in terms of running time and space requirements, and can solve instances of significantly larger sizes on which the current solver runs out of time or memory.

Model counting is the problem of computing the number of models that satisfy a given propositional theory. It has recently been applied to solving inference tasks in probabilistic logic programming, where the goal is to compute the probability of given queries being true provided a set of mutually independent random variables, a model (a logic program) and some evidence. The core of solving this inference task involves translating the logic program to a propositional theory and using a model counter. In this paper, we show that for some problems that involve inductive definitions like reachability in a graph, the translation of logic programs to SAT can be expensive for the purpose of solving inference tasks. For such problems, direct implementation of stable model semantics allows for more efficient solving. We present two implementation techniques, based on unfounded set detection, that extend a propositional model counter to a stable model counter. Our experiments show that for particular problems, our approach can outperform a state-of-the-art probabilistic logic programming solver by several orders of magnitude in terms of running time and space requirements, and can solve instances of significantly larger sizes on which the current solver runs out of time or memory.

Model counting is the problem of computing the number of models that satisfy a given propositional theory. It has recently been applied to solving inference tasks in probabilistic logic programming, where the goal is to compute the probability of given queries being true provided a set of mutually independent random variables, a model (a logic program) and some evidence. The core of solving this inference task involves translating the logic program to a propositional theory and using a model counter. In this paper, we show that for some problems that involve inductive definitions like reachability in a graph, the translation of logic programs to SAT can be expensive for the purpose of solving inference tasks. For such problems, direct implementation of stable model semantics allows for more efficient solving. We present two implementation techniques, based on unfounded set detection, that extend a propositional model counter to a stable model counter. Our experiments show that for particular problems, our approach can outperform a state-of-the-art probabilistic logic programming solver by several orders of magnitude in terms of running time and space requirements, and can solve instances of significantly larger sizes on which the current solver runs out of time or memory.

Model counting is the problem of computing the number of models that satisfy a given propositional theory. It has recently been applied to solving inference tasks in probabilistic logic programming, where the goal is to compute the probability of given queries being true provided a set of mutually independent random variables, a model (a logic program) and some evidence. The core of solving this inference task involves translating the logic program to a propositional theory and using a model counter. In this paper, we show that for some problems that involve inductive definitions like reachability in a graph, the translation of logic programs to SAT can be expensive for the purpose of solving inference tasks. For such problems, direct implementation of stable model semantics allows for more efficient solving. We present two implementation techniques, based on unfounded set detection, that extend a propositional model counter to a stable model counter. Our experiments show that for particular problems, our approach can outperform a state-of-the-art probabilistic logic programming solver by several orders of magnitude in terms of running time and space requirements, and can solve instances of significantly larger sizes on which the current solver runs out of time or memory.

Model counting is the problem of computing the number of models that satisfy a given propositional theory. It has recently been applied to solving inference tasks in probabilistic logic programming, where the goal is to compute the probability of given queries being true provided a set of mutually independent random variables, a model (a logic program) and some evidence. The core of solving this inference task involves translating the logic program to a propositional theory and using a model counter. In this paper, we show that for some problems that involve inductive definitions like reachability in a graph, the translation of logic programs to SAT can be expensive for the purpose of solving inference tasks. For such problems, direct implementation of stable model semantics allows for more efficient solving. We present two implementation techniques, based on unfounded set detection, that extend a propositional model counter to a stable model counter. Our experiments show that for particular problems, our approach can outperform a state-of-the-art probabilistic logic programming solver by several orders of magnitude in terms of running time and space requirements, and can solve instances of significantly larger sizes on which the current solver runs out of time or memory.

The Journal of Logic Programming 1987: Volume 4 , Issue Index. Digitized from IA1652909-07 . Previous issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_1986-12_3_4 . Next issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_1987_4_contents .

The Journal of Logic Programming 1991: Volume 10 , Issue Index. Digitized from IA1652909-07 . Previous issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_september-november-1990_9_2-3 . Next issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_1991_10_contents .

The Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 1996: Volume 28 , Issue CONTENTS. Digitized from IA1652909-05 . Previous issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_1996_28_index . Next issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_1996-07_28_1 . Note: This issue has no cover

The Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 1999: Volume 39 , Issue Index. Digitized from IA1652909-05 . Previous issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_1999-03_38_3 . Next issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_1999_39_contents . Note: This issue has no cover

The Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 1998: Volume 36 , Issue Index. Digitized from IA1652909-05 . Previous issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_1998-06_35_3 . Next issue: sim_journal-of-logic-and-algebraic-programming_1998_36_contents . Note: This issue has no cover

Coinduction is a powerful technique for reasoning about unfounded sets, unbounded structures, infinite automata, and interactive computations [6]. Where induction corresponds to least fixed point's semantics, coinduction corresponds to greatest fixed point semantics. Recently coinduction has been incorporated into logic programming and an elegant operational semantics developed for it [11, 12]. This operational semantics is the greatest fix point counterpart of SLD resolution (SLD resolution imparts operational semantics to least fix point based computations) and is termed co- SLD resolution. In co-SLD resolution, a predicate goal p( t) succeeds if it unifies with one of its ancestor calls. In addition, rational infinite terms are allowed as arguments of predicates. Infinite terms are represented as solutions to unification equations and the occurs check is omitted during the unification process. Coinductive Logic Programming (Co-LP) and Co-SLD resolution can be used to elegantly perform model checking and planning. A combined SLD and Co-SLD resolution based LP system forms the common basis for planning, scheduling, verification, model checking, and constraint solving [9, 4]. This is achieved by amalgamating SLD resolution, co-SLD resolution, and constraint logic programming [13] in a single logic programming system. Given that parallelism in logic programs can be implicitly exploited [8], complex, compute-intensive applications (planning, scheduling, model checking, etc.) can be executed in parallel on multi-core machines. Parallel execution can result in speed-ups as well as in larger instances of the problems being solved. In the remainder we elaborate on (i) how planning can be elegantly and efficiently performed under real-time constraints, (ii) how real-time systems can be elegantly and efficiently model- checked, as well as (iii) how hybrid systems can be verified in a combined system with both co-SLD and SLD resolution. Implementations of co-SLD resolution as well as preliminary implementations of the planning and verification applications have been developed [4]. Co-LP and Model Checking: The vast majority of properties that are to be verified can be classified into safety properties and liveness properties. It is well known within model checking that safety properties can be verified by reachability analysis, i.e, if a counter-example to the property exists, it can be finitely determined by enumerating all the reachable states of the Kripke structure.

Coinduction is a powerful technique for reasoning about unfounded sets, unbounded structures, infinite automata, and interactive computations [6]. Where induction corresponds to least fixed point's semantics, coinduction corresponds to greatest fixed point semantics. Recently coinduction has been incorporated into logic programming and an elegant operational semantics developed for it [11, 12]. This operational semantics is the greatest fix point counterpart of SLD resolution (SLD resolution imparts operational semantics to least fix point based computations) and is termed co- SLD resolution. In co-SLD resolution, a predicate goal p( t) succeeds if it unifies with one of its ancestor calls. In addition, rational infinite terms are allowed as arguments of predicates. Infinite terms are represented as solutions to unification equations and the occurs check is omitted during the unification process. Coinductive Logic Programming (Co-LP) and Co-SLD resolution can be used to elegantly perform model checking and planning. A combined SLD and Co-SLD resolution based LP system forms the common basis for planning, scheduling, verification, model checking, and constraint solving [9, 4]. This is achieved by amalgamating SLD resolution, co-SLD resolution, and constraint logic programming [13] in a single logic programming system. Given that parallelism in logic programs can be implicitly exploited [8], complex, compute-intensive applications (planning, scheduling, model checking, etc.) can be executed in parallel on multi-core machines. Parallel execution can result in speed-ups as well as in larger instances of the problems being solved. In the remainder we elaborate on (i) how planning can be elegantly and efficiently performed under real-time constraints, (ii) how real-time systems can be elegantly and efficiently model- checked, as well as (iii) how hybrid systems can be verified in a combined system with both co-SLD and SLD resolution. Implementations of co-SLD resolution as well as preliminary implementations of the planning and verification applications have been developed [4]. Co-LP and Model Checking: The vast majority of properties that are to be verified can be classified into safety properties and liveness properties. It is well known within model checking that safety properties can be verified by reachability analysis, i.e, if a counter-example to the property exists, it can be finitely determined by enumerating all the reachable states of the Kripke structure.

Coinduction is a powerful technique for reasoning about unfounded sets, unbounded structures, infinite automata, and interactive computations [6]. Where induction corresponds to least fixed point's semantics, coinduction corresponds to greatest fixed point semantics. Recently coinduction has been incorporated into logic programming and an elegant operational semantics developed for it [11, 12]. This operational semantics is the greatest fix point counterpart of SLD resolution (SLD resolution imparts operational semantics to least fix point based computations) and is termed co- SLD resolution. In co-SLD resolution, a predicate goal p( t) succeeds if it unifies with one of its ancestor calls. In addition, rational infinite terms are allowed as arguments of predicates. Infinite terms are represented as solutions to unification equations and the occurs check is omitted during the unification process. Coinductive Logic Programming (Co-LP) and Co-SLD resolution can be used to elegantly perform model checking and planning. A combined SLD and Co-SLD resolution based LP system forms the common basis for planning, scheduling, verification, model checking, and constraint solving [9, 4]. This is achieved by amalgamating SLD resolution, co-SLD resolution, and constraint logic programming [13] in a single logic programming system. Given that parallelism in logic programs can be implicitly exploited [8], complex, compute-intensive applications (planning, scheduling, model checking, etc.) can be executed in parallel on multi-core machines. Parallel execution can result in speed-ups as well as in larger instances of the problems being solved. In the remainder we elaborate on (i) how planning can be elegantly and efficiently performed under real-time constraints, (ii) how real-time systems can be elegantly and efficiently model- checked, as well as (iii) how hybrid systems can be verified in a combined system with both co-SLD and SLD resolution. Implementations of co-SLD resolution as well as preliminary implementations of the planning and verification applications have been developed [4]. Co-LP and Model Checking: The vast majority of properties that are to be verified can be classified into safety properties and liveness properties. It is well known within model checking that safety properties can be verified by reachability analysis, i.e, if a counter-example to the property exists, it can be finitely determined by enumerating all the reachable states of the Kripke structure.

Coinduction is a powerful technique for reasoning about unfounded sets, unbounded structures, infinite automata, and interactive computations [6]. Where induction corresponds to least fixed point's semantics, coinduction corresponds to greatest fixed point semantics. Recently coinduction has been incorporated into logic programming and an elegant operational semantics developed for it [11, 12]. This operational semantics is the greatest fix point counterpart of SLD resolution (SLD resolution imparts operational semantics to least fix point based computations) and is termed co- SLD resolution. In co-SLD resolution, a predicate goal p( t) succeeds if it unifies with one of its ancestor calls. In addition, rational infinite terms are allowed as arguments of predicates. Infinite terms are represented as solutions to unification equations and the occurs check is omitted during the unification process. Coinductive Logic Programming (Co-LP) and Co-SLD resolution can be used to elegantly perform model checking and planning. A combined SLD and Co-SLD resolution based LP system forms the common basis for planning, scheduling, verification, model checking, and constraint solving [9, 4]. This is achieved by amalgamating SLD resolution, co-SLD resolution, and constraint logic programming [13] in a single logic programming system. Given that parallelism in logic programs can be implicitly exploited [8], complex, compute-intensive applications (planning, scheduling, model checking, etc.) can be executed in parallel on multi-core machines. Parallel execution can result in speed-ups as well as in larger instances of the problems being solved. In the remainder we elaborate on (i) how planning can be elegantly and efficiently performed under real-time constraints, (ii) how real-time systems can be elegantly and efficiently model- checked, as well as (iii) how hybrid systems can be verified in a combined system with both co-SLD and SLD resolution. Implementations of co-SLD resolution as well as preliminary implementations of the planning and verification applications have been developed [4]. Co-LP and Model Checking: The vast majority of properties that are to be verified can be classified into safety properties and liveness properties. It is well known within model checking that safety properties can be verified by reachability analysis, i.e, if a counter-example to the property exists, it can be finitely determined by enumerating all the reachable states of the Kripke structure.

Coinduction is a powerful technique for reasoning about unfounded sets, unbounded structures, infinite automata, and interactive computations [6]. Where induction corresponds to least fixed point's semantics, coinduction corresponds to greatest fixed point semantics. Recently coinduction has been incorporated into logic programming and an elegant operational semantics developed for it [11, 12]. This operational semantics is the greatest fix point counterpart of SLD resolution (SLD resolution imparts operational semantics to least fix point based computations) and is termed co- SLD resolution. In co-SLD resolution, a predicate goal p( t) succeeds if it unifies with one of its ancestor calls. In addition, rational infinite terms are allowed as arguments of predicates. Infinite terms are represented as solutions to unification equations and the occurs check is omitted during the unification process. Coinductive Logic Programming (Co-LP) and Co-SLD resolution can be used to elegantly perform model checking and planning. A combined SLD and Co-SLD resolution based LP system forms the common basis for planning, scheduling, verification, model checking, and constraint solving [9, 4]. This is achieved by amalgamating SLD resolution, co-SLD resolution, and constraint logic programming [13] in a single logic programming system. Given that parallelism in logic programs can be implicitly exploited [8], complex, compute-intensive applications (planning, scheduling, model checking, etc.) can be executed in parallel on multi-core machines. Parallel execution can result in speed-ups as well as in larger instances of the problems being solved. In the remainder we elaborate on (i) how planning can be elegantly and efficiently performed under real-time constraints, (ii) how real-time systems can be elegantly and efficiently model- checked, as well as (iii) how hybrid systems can be verified in a combined system with both co-SLD and SLD resolution. Implementations of co-SLD resolution as well as preliminary implementations of the planning and verification applications have been developed [4]. Co-LP and Model Checking: The vast majority of properties that are to be verified can be classified into safety properties and liveness properties. It is well known within model checking that safety properties can be verified by reachability analysis, i.e, if a counter-example to the property exists, it can be finitely determined by enumerating all the reachable states of the Kripke structure.

Coinduction is a powerful technique for reasoning about unfounded sets, unbounded structures, infinite automata, and interactive computations [6]. Where induction corresponds to least fixed point's semantics, coinduction corresponds to greatest fixed point semantics. Recently coinduction has been incorporated into logic programming and an elegant operational semantics developed for it [11, 12]. This operational semantics is the greatest fix point counterpart of SLD resolution (SLD resolution imparts operational semantics to least fix point based computations) and is termed co- SLD resolution. In co-SLD resolution, a predicate goal p( t) succeeds if it unifies with one of its ancestor calls. In addition, rational infinite terms are allowed as arguments of predicates. Infinite terms are represented as solutions to unification equations and the occurs check is omitted during the unification process. Coinductive Logic Programming (Co-LP) and Co-SLD resolution can be used to elegantly perform model checking and planning. A combined SLD and Co-SLD resolution based LP system forms the common basis for planning, scheduling, verification, model checking, and constraint solving [9, 4]. This is achieved by amalgamating SLD resolution, co-SLD resolution, and constraint logic programming [13] in a single logic programming system. Given that parallelism in logic programs can be implicitly exploited [8], complex, compute-intensive applications (planning, scheduling, model checking, etc.) can be executed in parallel on multi-core machines. Parallel execution can result in speed-ups as well as in larger instances of the problems being solved. In the remainder we elaborate on (i) how planning can be elegantly and efficiently performed under real-time constraints, (ii) how real-time systems can be elegantly and efficiently model- checked, as well as (iii) how hybrid systems can be verified in a combined system with both co-SLD and SLD resolution. Implementations of co-SLD resolution as well as preliminary implementations of the planning and verification applications have been developed [4]. Co-LP and Model Checking: The vast majority of properties that are to be verified can be classified into safety properties and liveness properties. It is well known within model checking that safety properties can be verified by reachability analysis, i.e, if a counter-example to the property exists, it can be finitely determined by enumerating all the reachable states of the Kripke structure.

In this paper we present the new logic programming language DALI, aimed at defining agents and agent systems. A main design objective for DALI has been that of introducing in a declarative fashion all the essential features, while keeping the language as close as possible to the syntax and semantics of the plain Horn--clause language. Special atoms and rules have been introduced, for representing: external events, to which the agent is able to respond (reactivity); actions (reactivity and proactivity); internal events (previous conclusions which can trigger further activity); past and present events (to be aware of what has happened). An extended resolution is provided, so that a DALI agent is able to answer queries like in the plain Horn--clause language, but is also able to cope with the different kinds of events, and exhibit a (rational) reactive and proactive behaviour.

In this paper we present the new logic programming language DALI, aimed at defining agents and agent systems. A main design objective for DALI has been that of introducing in a declarative fashion all the essential features, while keeping the language as close as possible to the syntax and semantics of the plain Horn--clause language. Special atoms and rules have been introduced, for representing: external events, to which the agent is able to respond (reactivity); actions (reactivity and proactivity); internal events (previous conclusions which can trigger further activity); past and present events (to be aware of what has happened). An extended resolution is provided, so that a DALI agent is able to answer queries like in the plain Horn--clause language, but is also able to cope with the different kinds of events, and exhibit a (rational) reactive and proactive behaviour.

In this paper we present the new logic programming language DALI, aimed at defining agents and agent systems. A main design objective for DALI has been that of introducing in a declarative fashion all the essential features, while keeping the language as close as possible to the syntax and semantics of the plain Horn--clause language. Special atoms and rules have been introduced, for representing: external events, to which the agent is able to respond (reactivity); actions (reactivity and proactivity); internal events (previous conclusions which can trigger further activity); past and present events (to be aware of what has happened). An extended resolution is provided, so that a DALI agent is able to answer queries like in the plain Horn--clause language, but is also able to cope with the different kinds of events, and exhibit a (rational) reactive and proactive behaviour.

Inductive logic programming, or relational learning, is a powerful paradigm for machine learning or data mining. However, in order for ILP to become practically useful, the efficiency of ILP systems must improve substantially. To this end, the notion of a query pack is introduced: it structures sets of similar queries. Furthermore, a mechanism is described for executing such query packs. A complexity analysis shows that considerable efficiency improvements can be achieved through the use of this query pack execution mechanism. This claim is supported by empirical results obtained by incorporating support for query pack execution in two existing learning systems.

One of the long-standing problems on logic programming is to express exception handling in a high-level way. We argue that this problem can be solved by adopting computability logic and sequential-choice disjunctive goal formulas of the form $G_0 \bigtriangledown G_1$ where $G_0, G_1$ are goals. These goals have the following intended semantics: sequentially $choose$ the first true goal $G_i$ and execute $G_i$ where $i (= 0\ {\rm or}\ 1)$. These goals thus allow us to specify a task $G_0$ with the failure-handling (exception handling) routine $G_1$.

We show how categorial deduction can be implemented in higher-order (linear) logic programming, thereby realising parsing as deduction for the associative and non-associative Lambek calculi. This provides a method of solution to the parsing problem of Lambek categorial grammar applicable to a variety of its extensions.

This paper addresses two central problems for probabilistic processing models: parameter estimation from incomplete data and efficient retrieval of most probable analyses. These questions have been answered satisfactorily only for probabilistic regular and context-free models. We address these problems for a more expressive probabilistic constraint logic programming model. We present a log-linear probability model for probabilistic constraint logic programming. On top of this model we define an algorithm to estimate the parameters and to select the properties of log-linear models from incomplete data. This algorithm is an extension of the improved iterative scaling algorithm of Della-Pietra, Della-Pietra, and Lafferty (1995). Our algorithm applies to log-linear models in general and is accompanied with suitable approximation methods when applied to large data spaces. Furthermore, we present an approach for searching for most probable analyses of the probabilistic constraint logic programming model. This method can be applied to the ambiguity resolution problem in natural language processing applications.

This paper addresses two central problems for probabilistic processing models: parameter estimation from incomplete data and efficient retrieval of most probable analyses. These questions have been answered satisfactorily only for probabilistic regular and context-free models. We address these problems for a more expressive probabilistic constraint logic programming model. We present a log-linear probability model for probabilistic constraint logic programming. On top of this model we define an algorithm to estimate the parameters and to select the properties of log-linear models from incomplete data. This algorithm is an extension of the improved iterative scaling algorithm of Della-Pietra, Della-Pietra, and Lafferty (1995). Our algorithm applies to log-linear models in general and is accompanied with suitable approximation methods when applied to large data spaces. Furthermore, we present an approach for searching for most probable analyses of the probabilistic constraint logic programming model. This method can be applied to the ambiguity resolution problem in natural language processing applications.

This paper addresses two central problems for probabilistic processing models: parameter estimation from incomplete data and efficient retrieval of most probable analyses. These questions have been answered satisfactorily only for probabilistic regular and context-free models. We address these problems for a more expressive probabilistic constraint logic programming model. We present a log-linear probability model for probabilistic constraint logic programming. On top of this model we define an algorithm to estimate the parameters and to select the properties of log-linear models from incomplete data. This algorithm is an extension of the improved iterative scaling algorithm of Della-Pietra, Della-Pietra, and Lafferty (1995). Our algorithm applies to log-linear models in general and is accompanied with suitable approximation methods when applied to large data spaces. Furthermore, we present an approach for searching for most probable analyses of the probabilistic constraint logic programming model. This method can be applied to the ambiguity resolution problem in natural language processing applications.

This paper addresses two central problems for probabilistic processing models: parameter estimation from incomplete data and efficient retrieval of most probable analyses. These questions have been answered satisfactorily only for probabilistic regular and context-free models. We address these problems for a more expressive probabilistic constraint logic programming model. We present a log-linear probability model for probabilistic constraint logic programming. On top of this model we define an algorithm to estimate the parameters and to select the properties of log-linear models from incomplete data. This algorithm is an extension of the improved iterative scaling algorithm of Della-Pietra, Della-Pietra, and Lafferty (1995). Our algorithm applies to log-linear models in general and is accompanied with suitable approximation methods when applied to large data spaces. Furthermore, we present an approach for searching for most probable analyses of the probabilistic constraint logic programming model. This method can be applied to the ambiguity resolution problem in natural language processing applications.

Abduction, first proposed in the setting of classical logics, has been studied with growing interest in the logic programming area during the last years. In this paper we study {\em abduction with penalization} in logic programming. This form of abductive reasoning, which has not been previously analyzed in logic programming, turns out to represent several relevant problems, including optimization problems, very naturally. We define a formal model for abduction with penalization from logic programs, which extends the abductive framework proposed by Kakas and Mancarella. We show the high expressiveness of this formalism, by encoding a couple of relevant problems, including the well-know Traveling Salesman Problem from optimization theory, in this abductive framework. The resulting encodings are very simple and elegant. We analyze the complexity of the main decisional problems arising in this framework. An interesting result in this course is that ``negation comes for free.'' Indeed, the addition of (even unstratified) negation does not cause any further increase to the complexity of the abductive reasoning tasks (which remains the same as for not-free programs).

CS 61A The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs Instructor Brian Harvey Spring 2008 Introduction to programming and computer science. This course exposes students to techniques of abstraction at several levels: (a) within a programming language, using higher-order functions, manifest types, data-directed programming, and message-passing; (b) between programming languages, using functional and rule-based languages as examples. It also relates these techniques to the practical problems of implementation of languages and algorithms on a von Neumann machine. There are several significant programming projects, programmed in a dialect of the LISP language.

CS 61A The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs Instructor Brian Harvey Spring 2008 Introduction to programming and computer science. This course exposes students to techniques of abstraction at several levels: (a) within a programming language, using higher-order functions, manifest types, data-directed programming, and message-passing; (b) between programming languages, using functional and rule-based languages as examples. It also relates these techniques to the practical problems of implementation of languages and algorithms on a von Neumann machine. There are several significant programming projects, programmed in a dialect of the LISP language.

CS 61A The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs Instructor Brian Harvey Spring 2008 Introduction to programming and computer science. This course exposes students to techniques of abstraction at several levels: (a) within a programming language, using higher-order functions, manifest types, data-directed programming, and message-passing; (b) between programming languages, using functional and rule-based languages as examples. It also relates these techniques to the practical problems of implementation of languages and algorithms on a von Neumann machine. There are several significant programming projects, programmed in a dialect of the LISP language.

CS 61A The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs Instructor Brian Harvey Spring 2008 Introduction to programming and computer science. This course exposes students to techniques of abstraction at several levels: (a) within a programming language, using higher-order functions, manifest types, data-directed programming, and message-passing; (b) between programming languages, using functional and rule-based languages as examples. It also relates these techniques to the practical problems of implementation of languages and algorithms on a von Neumann machine. There are several significant programming projects, programmed in a dialect of the LISP language.

Includes bibliographies

Includes bibliographies

Logic programming has traditionally lacked devices for expressing mutually exclusive modules. We address this limitation by adopting choice-conjunctive modules of the form $D_0 \& D_1$ where $D_0, D_1$ are a conjunction of Horn clauses and $\&$ is a linear logic connective. Solving a goal $G$ using $D_0 \& D_1$ -- $exec(D_0 \& D_1,G)$ -- has the following operational semantics: $choose$ a successful one between $exec(D_0,G)$ and $exec(D_1,G)$. In other words, if $D_0$ is chosen in the course of solving $G$, then $D_1$ will be discarded and vice versa. Hence, the class of choice-conjunctive modules can capture the notion of mutually exclusive modules.

In recent work, semantic games of independence-friendly logic were studied in strategic form in terms of (mixed strategy) Nash equilibria. The class of strategic games of independence-friendly logic is contained in the class of win-loss, zero-sum two-player games. In this note we draw on the theory of linear programming to develop tools to analyze the value of such games. We give two applications of these tools to independence-friendly logic under the so-called equilibrium semantics.

The possibility of translating logic programs into functional ones has long been a subject of investigation. Common to the many approaches is that the original logic program, in order to be translated, needs to be well-moded and this has led to the common understanding that these programs can be considered to be the ``functional part'' of logic programs. As a consequence of this it has become widely accepted that ``complex'' logical variables, the possibility of a dynamic selection rule, and general properties of non-well-moded programs are exclusive features of logic programs. This is not quite true, as some of these features are naturally found in lazy functional languages. We readdress the old question of what features are exclusive to the logic programming paradigm by defining a simple translation applicable to a wider range of logic programs, and demonstrate that the current circumscription is unreasonably restrictive.