Proof methods of declarative properties of definite programs

Projet CHLOEIn this paper we shall consider proofs of declarative properties of Definite Programs, i.e. properties associated with their logical semantics, in particular what is called the partial correctness of a logic program with respect to a specification and properties related to the proof theoretic semantics based on the notion of proof-tree. A specification consists of a logical formula associated with each predicate and establishing a relation between its arguments. A definite program is partially correct if every possible answer substitution satisfies the specification. This paper generalizes known results in logic programming in three ways : first it considers any kind of specification, second its results can be applied to extensions of logic programming such as functions or constraints, third new proof methods (the annotations methods) are presented. It gives an unified framework for different kind of known proof methods like the consequence verification method, the structural induction in definite clauses or the inductive proof of formulas. Two proof methods are presented. The second is adapted from the Attribute Grammar field to the field of Logic Programming. Both are proven sound and complete. The first one consists of defining a specification stronger than the original one, which furthermore is inductive (fixpoint induction). Many aspects of the inductive specification method are investigated.The second method is a refinement of the first one : with every predicate, one associates a finite set of formulas (we call this an annotation), together with implications between formulas. The proofs become more modular and tractable, but the user has to verify the consistency of his proof, which is a decidable property. This method is particularly suitable for proving the validity of specifications which are not inductive. It has the same power as the first method, but it is more specifically adapted to prove properties holding inside the proof-trees

Proving Correctness and Completeness of Normal Programs - a Declarative Approach

We advocate a declarative approach to proving properties of logic programs. Total correctness can be separated into correctness, completeness and clean termination; the latter includes non-floundering. Only clean termination depends on the operational semantics, in particular on the selection rule. We show how to deal with correctness and completeness in a declarative way, treating programs only from the logical point of view. Specifications used in this approach are interpretations (or theories). We point out that specifications for correctness may differ from those for completeness, as usually there are answers which are neither considered erroneous nor required to be computed. We present proof methods for correctness and completeness for definite programs and generalize them to normal programs. For normal programs we use the 3-valued completion semantics; this is a standard semantics corresponding to negation as finite failure. The proof methods employ solely the classical 2-valued logic. We use a 2-valued characterization of the 3-valued completion semantics which may be of separate interest. The presented methods are compared with an approach based on operational semantics. We also employ the ideas of this work to generalize a known method of proving termination of normal programs.Comment: To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP). 44 page

Correctness and completeness of logic programs

We discuss proving correctness and completeness of definite clause logic programs. We propose a method for proving completeness, while for proving correctness we employ a method which should be well known but is often neglected. Also, we show how to prove completeness and correctness in the presence of SLD-tree pruning, and point out that approximate specifications simplify specifications and proofs. We compare the proof methods to declarative diagnosis (algorithmic debugging), showing that approximate specifications eliminate a major drawback of the latter. We argue that our proof methods reflect natural declarative thinking about programs, and that they can be used, formally or informally, in every-day programming.Comment: 29 pages, 2 figures; with editorial modifications, small corrections and extensions. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1411.3015. Overlaps explained in "Related Work" (p. 21

Towards a unified theory of logic programming semantics: Level mapping characterizations of selector generated models

Currently, the variety of expressive extensions and different semantics created for logic programs with negation is diverse and heterogeneous, and there is a lack of comprehensive comparative studies which map out the multitude of perspectives in a uniform way. Most recently, however, new methodologies have been proposed which allow one to derive uniform characterizations of different declarative semantics for logic programs with negation. In this paper, we study the relationship between two of these approaches, namely the level mapping characterizations due to [Hitzler and Wendt 2005], and the selector generated models due to [Schwarz 2004]. We will show that the latter can be captured by means of the former, thereby supporting the claim that level mappings provide a very flexible framework which is applicable to very diversely defined semantics.Comment: 17 page

Towards a Systematic Account of Different Semantics for Logic Programs

In [Hitzler and Wendt 2002, 2005], a new methodology has been proposed which allows to derive uniform characterizations of different declarative semantics for logic programs with negation. One result from this work is that the well-founded semantics can formally be understood as a stratified version of the Fitting (or Kripke-Kleene) semantics. The constructions leading to this result, however, show a certain asymmetry which is not readily understood. We will study this situation here with the result that we will obtain a coherent picture of relations between different semantics for normal logic programs.Comment: 20 page