During the last decade, Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) have become a major specification and implementation language for logical, constraint-based algorithms and intelligent applications (as witnessed for example by several hundred publications available online that mention CHR). Algorithms are often specified using inference rules, rewrite rules, sequents, proof rules, or logical axioms that can be almost directly written in CHR.

In this paper, we present a framework for automatic generation of CHR solvers given the logical specification of the constraints. This approach takes advantage of the power of tabled resolution for constraint logic programming, in order to check the validity of the rules. Compared to previous work (Apt and Monfroy 1999; Ringeissen and Monfroy 2000; Abdennadher and Rigotti 2000; Abdennadher and Rigotti 2001a), where different methods for automatic generation of constraint solvers have been proposed, our approach enables the generation of more expressive rules (even recursive and splitting rules) that can be used directly as CHR solvers.

In classical CLP(FD) systems, domains of variables are completely known at the beginning of the constraint propagation process. However, in systems interacting with an external environment, acquiring the whole domains of variables before the beginning of constraint propagation may cause waste of computation time, or even obsolescence of the acquired data at the time of use. For such cases, the Interactive Constraint Satisfaction Problem (ICSP) model has been proposed (Cucchiara et al. 1999a) as an extension of the CSP model, to make it possible to start constraint propagation even when domains are not fully known, performing acquisition of domain elements only when necessary, and without the need for restarting the propagation after every acquisition. In this paper, we show how a solver for the two sorted CLP language, defined in previous work (Gavanelli et al. 2005) to express ICSPs, has been implemented in the Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) language, a declarative language particularly suitable for high level implementation of constraint solvers.

We study here schedulers for a class of rules that naturally arise in the context of rule-based constraint programming. We systematically derive a scheduler for them from a generic iteration algorithm of Apt (2000). We apply this study to so-called membership rules of Apt and Monfroy (2001). This leads to an implementation that yields a considerably better performance for these rules than their execution as standard CHR rules. Finally, we show how redundant rules can be identified and how appropriately reduced sets of rules can be computed.

A grammar formalism based upon CHR is proposed analogously to the way Definite Clause Grammars are defined and implemented on top of Prolog. These grammars execute as robust bottom-up parsers with an inherent treatment of ambiguity and a high flexibility to model various linguistic phenomena. The formalism extends previous logic programming based grammars with a form of context-sensitive rules and the possibility to include extra-grammatical hypotheses in both head and body of grammar rules. Among the applications are straightforward implementations of Assumption Grammars and abduction under integrity constraints for language analysis. CHR grammars appear as a powerful tool for specification and implementation of language processors and may be proposed as a new standard for bottom-up grammars in logic programming.

In this paper we discuss the optimizing compilation of Constraint Handling Rules (CHRs). CHRs are a multi-headed committed choice constraint language, commonly applied for writing incremental constraint solvers. CHRs are usually implemented as a language extension that compiles to the underlying language. In this paper we show how we can use different kinds of information in the compilation of CHRs to obtain access efficiency, and a better translation of the CHR rules into the underlying language, which in this case is HAL. The kinds of information used include the types, modes, determinism, functional dependencies and symmetries of the CHR constraints. We also show how to analyze CHR programs to determine this information about functional dependencies, symmetries and other kinds of information supporting optimizations.

FLUX is a programming method for the design of agents that reason logically about their actions and sensor information in the presence of incomplete knowledge. The core of FLUX is a system of Constraint Handling Rules, which enables agents to maintain an internal model of their environment by which they control their own behavior. The general action representation formalism of the fluent calculus provides the formal semantics for the constraint solver. FLUX exhibits excellent computational behavior due to both a carefully restricted expressiveness and the inference paradigm of progression.

The most advanced implementation of adaptive constraint processing with Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) allows the application of intelligent search strategies to solve Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSP). This presentation compares an improved version of conflict-directed backjumping and two variants of dynamic backtracking with respect to chronological backtracking on some of the AIM instances which are a benchmark set of random 3-SAT problems. A CHR implementation of a Boolean constraint solver combined with these different search strategies in Java is thus being compared with a CHR implementation of the same Boolean constraint solver combined with chronological backtracking in SICStus Prolog. This comparison shows that the addition of “intelligence” to the search process may reduce the number of search steps dramatically. Furthermore, the runtime of their Java implementations is in most cases faster than the implementations of chronological backtracking. More specifically, conflict-directed backjumping is even faster than the SICStus Prolog implementation of chronological backtracking, although our Java implementation of CHR lacks the optimisations made in the SICStus Prolog system.