In this article, we propose a new technique for checking whether the bottom-up evaluation of logic programs with function symbols terminates. The technique is based on the definition of mappings from arguments to strings of function symbols, representing possible values which could be taken by arguments during the bottom-up evaluation. Starting from mappings, we identify mapping-restricted arguments, a subset of limited arguments, namely arguments that take values from finite domains. Mapping-restricted programs, consisting of rules whose arguments are all mapping restricted, are terminating under the bottom-up computation, as all of its arguments take values from finite domains. We show that mappings can be computed by transforming the original program into a unary logic program: this allows us to establish decidability of checking if a program is mapping restricted. We study the complexity of the presented approach and compare it to other techniques known in the literature. We also introduce an extension of the proposed approach that is able to recognize a wider class of logic programs. The presented technique provides a significant improvement, as it can detect terminating programs not identified by other criteria proposed so far. Furthermore, it can be combined with other techniques to further enlarge the class of programs recognized as terminating under the bottom-up evaluation.

Detecting Decidable Classes of Finitely Ground Logic Programs with Function Symbols / Calautti, Marco; Greco, Sergio; Trubitsyna, Irina. - In: ACM TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTATIONAL LOGIC. - ISSN 1529-3785. - 18:4(2017), pp. 28:1-28:42. [10.1145/3143804]

Detecting Decidable Classes of Finitely Ground Logic Programs with Function Symbols

Marco Calautti;
2017-01-01

Abstract

In this article, we propose a new technique for checking whether the bottom-up evaluation of logic programs with function symbols terminates. The technique is based on the definition of mappings from arguments to strings of function symbols, representing possible values which could be taken by arguments during the bottom-up evaluation. Starting from mappings, we identify mapping-restricted arguments, a subset of limited arguments, namely arguments that take values from finite domains. Mapping-restricted programs, consisting of rules whose arguments are all mapping restricted, are terminating under the bottom-up computation, as all of its arguments take values from finite domains. We show that mappings can be computed by transforming the original program into a unary logic program: this allows us to establish decidability of checking if a program is mapping restricted. We study the complexity of the presented approach and compare it to other techniques known in the literature. We also introduce an extension of the proposed approach that is able to recognize a wider class of logic programs. The presented technique provides a significant improvement, as it can detect terminating programs not identified by other criteria proposed so far. Furthermore, it can be combined with other techniques to further enlarge the class of programs recognized as terminating under the bottom-up evaluation.
2017
4
Calautti, Marco; Greco, Sergio; Trubitsyna, Irina
Detecting Decidable Classes of Finitely Ground Logic Programs with Function Symbols / Calautti, Marco; Greco, Sergio; Trubitsyna, Irina. - In: ACM TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTATIONAL LOGIC. - ISSN 1529-3785. - 18:4(2017), pp. 28:1-28:42. [10.1145/3143804]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
3143804.pdf

Solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Versione editoriale (Publisher’s layout)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 523.04 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
523.04 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11572/260179
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 6
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact