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

Logic Programming as Constructivism

The features of logic programming that seem unconventional from the viewpoint of classical logic can be explained in terms of constructivistic logic. We motivate and propose a constructivistic proof theory of non-Horn logic programming. Then, we apply this formalization for establishing results of practical interest. First, we show that 'stratification can be motivated in a simple and intuitive way. Relying on similar motivations, we introduce the larger classes of 'loosely stratified' and 'constructively consistent' programs. Second, we give a formal basis for introducing quantifiers into queries and logic programs by defining 'constructively domain independent* formulas. Third, we extend the Generalized Magic Sets procedure to loosely stratified and constructively consistent programs, by relying on a 'conditional fixpoini procedure

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

Applying Formal Methods to Networking: Theory, Techniques and Applications

Despite its great importance, modern network infrastructure is remarkable for the lack of rigor in its engineering. The Internet which began as a research experiment was never designed to handle the users and applications it hosts today. The lack of formalization of the Internet architecture meant limited abstractions and modularity, especially for the control and management planes, thus requiring for every new need a new protocol built from scratch. This led to an unwieldy ossified Internet architecture resistant to any attempts at formal verification, and an Internet culture where expediency and pragmatism are favored over formal correctness. Fortunately, recent work in the space of clean slate Internet design---especially, the software defined networking (SDN) paradigm---offers the Internet community another chance to develop the right kind of architecture and abstractions. This has also led to a great resurgence in interest of applying formal methods to specification, verification, and synthesis of networking protocols and applications. In this paper, we present a self-contained tutorial of the formidable amount of work that has been done in formal methods, and present a survey of its applications to networking.Comment: 30 pages, submitted to IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorial

Classes of Terminating Logic Programs

Termination of logic programs depends critically on the selection rule, i.e. the rule that determines which atom is selected in each resolution step. In this article, we classify programs (and queries) according to the selection rules for which they terminate. This is a survey and unified view on different approaches in the literature. For each class, we present a sufficient, for most classes even necessary, criterion for determining that a program is in that class. We study six classes: a program strongly terminates if it terminates for all selection rules; a program input terminates if it terminates for selection rules which only select atoms that are sufficiently instantiated in their input positions, so that these arguments do not get instantiated any further by the unification; a program local delay terminates if it terminates for local selection rules which only select atoms that are bounded w.r.t. an appropriate level mapping; a program left-terminates if it terminates for the usual left-to-right selection rule; a program exists-terminates if there exists a selection rule for which it terminates; finally, a program has bounded nondeterminism if it only has finitely many refutations. We propose a semantics-preserving transformation from programs with bounded nondeterminism into strongly terminating programs. Moreover, by unifying different formalisms and making appropriate assumptions, we are able to establish a formal hierarchy between the different classes.Comment: 50 pages. The following mistake was corrected: In figure 5, the first clause for insert was insert([],X,[X]