$\textup{\textsf{Sharing}}$, an abstract domain developed by D. Jacobs and A. Langen for the analysis of logic programs, derives useful aliasing information. It is well-known that a commonly used core of techniques, such as the integration of $\textup{\textsf{Sharing}}$ with freeness and linearity information, can significantly improve the precision of the analysis. However, a number of other proposals for refined domain combinations have been circulating for years. One feature that is common to these proposals is that they do not seem to have undergone a thorough experimental evaluation even with respect to the expected precision gains. In this paper we experimentally evaluate: helping $\textup{\textsf{Sharing}}$ with the definitely ground variables found using $\textit{Pos}$, the domain of positive Boolean formulas; the incorporation of explicit structural information; a full implementation of the reduced product of $\textup{\textsf{Sharing}}$ and $\textit{Pos}$; the issue of reordering the bindings in the computation of the abstract $\mgu$; an original proposal for the addition of a new mode recording the set of variables that are deemed to be ground or free; a refined way of using linearity to improve the analysis; the recovery of hidden information in the combination of $\textup{\textsf{Sharing}}$ with freeness information. Finally, we discuss the issue of whether tracking compoundness allows the computation of more sharing information.

We compare two recent extensions of the answer set (stable model) semantics of logic programs. One of them, due to Lifschitz, Tang and Turner, allows the bodies and heads of rules to contain nested expressions. The other, due to Niemelä and Simons, uses weight constraints. We show that there is a simple, modular translation from the language of weight constraints into the language of nested expressions that preserves the program's answer sets. Nested expressions can be eliminated from the result of this translation in favor of additional atoms. The translation makes it possible to compute answer sets for some programs with weight constraints using satisfiability solvers, and to prove the strong equivalence of programs with weight constraints using the logic of here-and-there.

This paper focuses on the inference of modes for which a logic program is guaranteed to terminate. This generalises traditional termination analysis where an analyser tries to verify termination for a specified mode. Our contribution is a methodology in which components of traditional termination analysis are combined with backwards analysis to obtain an analyser for termination inference. We identify a condition on the components of the analyser which guarantees that termination inference will infer all modes which can be checked to terminate. The application of this methodology to enhance a traditional termination analyser to perform also termination inference is demonstrated.

Part of the theory of logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning concerns the study of fixed-point semantics for these paradigms. Several different semantics have been proposed during the last two decades, and some have been more successful and acknowledged than others. The rationales behind those various semantics have been manifold, depending on one's point of view, which may be that of a programmer or inspired by commonsense reasoning, and consequently the constructions which lead to these semantics are technically very diverse, and the exact relationships between them have not yet been fully understood. In this paper, we present a conceptually new method, based on level mappings, which allows to provide uniform characterizations of different semantics for logic programs. We will display our approach by giving new and uniform characterizations of some of the major semantics, more particular of the least model semantics for definite programs, of the Fitting semantics, and of the well-founded semantics. A novel characterization of the weakly perfect model semantics will also be provided.

Abduction, first proposed in the setting of classical logics, has been studied with growing interest in the logic programming area during the last years. In this paper we study abduction with penalization in the logic programming framework. This form of abductive reasoning, which has not been previously analyzed in logic programming, turns out to represent several relevant problems, including optimization problems, very naturally. We define a formal model for abduction with penalization over logic programs, which extends the abductive framework proposed by Kakas and Mancarella. We address knowledge representation issues, encoding a number of problems in our abductive framework. In particular, we consider some relevant problems, taken from different domains, ranging from optimization theory to diagnosis and planning; their encodings turn out to be simple and elegant in our formalism. We thoroughly analyze the computational complexity of the main problems arising in the context of abduction with penalization from logic programs. Finally, we implement a system supporting the proposed abductive framework on top of the DLV engine. To this end, we design a translation from abduction problems with penalties into logic programs with weak constraints. We prove that this approach is sound and complete.

Logic programming languages, such as Prolog, provide a high-level, declarative approach to programming. Logic Programming offers great potential for implicit parallelism, thus allowing parallel systems to often reduce a program's execution time without programmer intervention. We believe that for complex applications that take several hours, if not days, to return an answer, even limited speedups from parallel execution can directly translate to very significant productivity gains. It has been argued that Prolog's evaluation strategy – SLD resolution – often limits the potential of the logic programming paradigm. The past years have therefore seen widening efforts at increasing Prolog's declarativeness and expressiveness. Tabling has proved to be a viable technique to efficiently overcome SLD's susceptibility to infinite loops and redundant subcomputations. Our research demonstrates that implicit or-parallelism is a natural fit for logic programs with tabling. To substantiate this belief, we have designed and implemented an or-parallel tabling engine – OPTYap – and we used a shared-memory parallel machine to evaluate its performance. To the best of our knowledge, OPTYap is the first implementation of a parallel tabling engine for logic programming systems. OPTYap builds on Yap's efficient sequential Prolog engine. Its execution model is based on the SLG-WAM for tabling, and on the environment copying for or-parallelism. Preliminary results indicate that the mechanisms proposed to parallelize search in the context of SLD resolution can indeed be effectively and naturally generalized to parallelize tabled computations, and that the resulting systems can achieve good performance on shared-memory parallel machines. More importantly, it emphasizes our belief that through applying or-parallelism and tabling to logic programs the range of applications for Logic Programming can be increased.

Argumentation has proved a useful tool in defining formal semantics for assumption-based reasoning by viewing a proof as a process in which proponents and opponents attack each others arguments by undercuts (attack to an argument's premise) and rebuts (attack to an argument's conclusion). In this paper, we formulate a variety of notions of attack for extended logic programs from combinations of undercuts and rebuts and define a general hierarchy of argumentation semantics parameterised by the notions of attack chosen by proponent and opponent. We prove the equivalence and subset relationships between the semantics and examine some essential properties concerning consistency and the coherence principle, which relates default negation and explicit negation. Most significantly, we place existing semantics put forward in the literature in our hierarchy and identify a particular argumentation semantics for which we prove equivalence to the paraconsistent well-founded semantics with explicit negation, WFSX$_p$. Finally, we present a general proof theory, based on dialogue trees, and show that it is sound and complete with respect to the argumentation semantics.

We present cTI, the first system for universal left-termination inference of logic programs. Termination inference generalizes termination analysis and checking. Traditionally, a termination analyzer tries to prove that a given class of queries terminates. This class must be provided to the system, for instance by means of user annotations. Moreover, the analysis must be redone every time the class of queries of interest is updated. Termination inference, in contrast, requires neither user annotations nor recomputation. In this approach, terminating classes for all predicates are inferred at once. We describe the architecture of cTI and report an extensive experimental evaluation of the system covering many classical examples from the logic programming termination literature and several Prolog programs of respectable size and complexity.

A programming tactic involving polyhedra is reported that has been widely applied in the polyhedral analysis of (constraint) logic programs. The method enables the computations of convex hulls that are required for polyhedral analysis to be coded with linear constraint solving machinery that is available in many Prolog systems.