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

(Co-)Inductive semantics for Constraint Handling Rules

In this paper, we address the problem of defining a fixpoint semantics for Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) that captures the behavior of both simplification and propagation rules in a sound and complete way with respect to their declarative semantics. Firstly, we show that the logical reading of states with respect to a set of simplification rules can be characterized by a least fixpoint over the transition system generated by the abstract operational semantics of CHR. Similarly, we demonstrate that the logical reading of states with respect to a set of propagation rules can be characterized by a greatest fixpoint. Then, in order to take advantage of both types of rules without losing fixpoint characterization, we present an operational semantics with persistent. We finally establish that this semantics can be characterized by two nested fixpoints, and we show the resulting language is an elegant framework to program using coinductive reasoning.Comment: 17 page

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

CHR(PRISM)-based Probabilistic Logic Learning

PRISM is an extension of Prolog with probabilistic predicates and built-in support for expectation-maximization learning. Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) is a high-level programming language based on multi-headed multiset rewrite rules. In this paper, we introduce a new probabilistic logic formalism, called CHRiSM, based on a combination of CHR and PRISM. It can be used for high-level rapid prototyping of complex statistical models by means of "chance rules". The underlying PRISM system can then be used for several probabilistic inference tasks, including probability computation and parameter learning. We define the CHRiSM language in terms of syntax and operational semantics, and illustrate it with examples. We define the notion of ambiguous programs and define a distribution semantics for unambiguous programs. Next, we describe an implementation of CHRiSM, based on CHR(PRISM). We discuss the relation between CHRiSM and other probabilistic logic programming languages, in particular PCHR. Finally we identify potential application domains

Optimal Union-Find in Constraint Handling Rules

Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) is a committed-choice rule-based language that was originally intended for writing constraint solvers. In this paper we show that it is also possible to write the classic union-find algorithm and variants in CHR. The programs neither compromise in declarativeness nor efficiency. We study the time complexity of our programs: they match the almost-linear complexity of the best known imperative implementations. This fact is illustrated with experimental results.Comment: 12 pages, 3 figures, to appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP