Confluence of CHR Revisited:Invariants and Modulo Equivalence

Abstract simulation of one transition system by another is introduced as a means to simulate a potentially infinite class of similar transition sequences within a single transition sequence. This is useful for proving confluence under invariants of a given system, as it may reduce the number of proof cases to consider from infinity to a finite number. The classical confluence results for Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) can be explained in this way, using CHR as a simulation of itself. Using an abstract simulation based on a ground representation, we extend these results to include confluence under invariant and modulo equivalence, which have not been done in a satisfactory way before.Comment: Pre-proceedings paper presented at the 28th International Symposium on Logic-Based Program Synthesis and Transformation (LOPSTR 2018), Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 4-6 September 2018 (arXiv:1808.03326

A Decidable Confluence Test for Cognitive Models in ACT-R

Computational cognitive modeling investigates human cognition by building detailed computational models for cognitive processes. Adaptive Control of Thought - Rational (ACT-R) is a rule-based cognitive architecture that offers a widely employed framework to build such models. There is a sound and complete embedding of ACT-R in Constraint Handling Rules (CHR). Therefore analysis techniques from CHR can be used to reason about computational properties of ACT-R models. For example, confluence is the property that a program yields the same result for the same input regardless of the rules that are applied. In ACT-R models, there are often cognitive processes that should always yield the same result while others e.g. implement strategies to solve a problem that could yield different results. In this paper, a decidable confluence criterion for ACT-R is presented. It allows to identify ACT-R rules that are not confluent. Thereby, the modeler can check if his model has the desired behavior. The sound and complete translation of ACT-R to CHR from prior work is used to come up with a suitable invariant-based confluence criterion from the CHR literature. Proper invariants for translated ACT-R models are identified and proven to be decidable. The presented method coincides with confluence of the original ACT-R models.Comment: To appear in Stefania Costantini, Enrico Franconi, William Van Woensel, Roman Kontchakov, Fariba Sadri, and Dumitru Roman: "Proceedings of RuleML+RR 2017". Springer LNC

Constraint Handling Rules with Binders, Patterns and Generic Quantification

Constraint Handling Rules provide descriptions for constraint solvers. However, they fall short when those constraints specify some binding structure, like higher-rank types in a constraint-based type inference algorithm. In this paper, the term syntax of constraints is replaced by $\lambda$-tree syntax, in which binding is explicit; and a new $\nabla$ generic quantifier is introduced, which is used to create new fresh constants.Comment: Paper presented at the 33nd International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2017), Melbourne, Australia, August 28 to September 1, 2017 16 pages, LaTeX, no PDF figure

Justifications in Constraint Handling Rules for Logical Retraction in Dynamic Algorithms

We present a straightforward source-to-source transformation that introduces justifications for user-defined constraints into the CHR programming language. Then a scheme of two rules suffices to allow for logical retraction (deletion, removal) of constraints during computation. Without the need to recompute from scratch, these rules remove not only the constraint but also undo all consequences of the rule applications that involved the constraint. We prove a confluence result concerning the rule scheme and show its correctness. When algorithms are written in CHR, constraints represent both data and operations. CHR is already incremental by nature, i.e. constraints can be added at runtime. Logical retraction adds decrementality. Hence any algorithm written in CHR with justifications will become fully dynamic. Operations can be undone and data can be removed at any point in the computation without compromising the correctness of the result. We present two classical examples of dynamic algorithms, written in our prototype implementation of CHR with justifications that is available online: maintaining the minimum of a changing set of numbers and shortest paths in a graph whose edges change.Comment: Pre-proceedings paper presented at the 27th International Symposium on Logic-Based Program Synthesis and Transformation (LOPSTR 2017), Namur, Belgium, 10-12 October 2017 (arXiv:1708.07854