Online partial deduction of logic programs
Open accessAbstract
Partial deduction systems must be guided by an unfolding strategy, telling them which atoms to unfold and when to stop unfolding. Online strategies exploit knowledge accumulated during the unfolding itself, for example in a goal stack, while offline strategies are fixed before unfolding begins. Online strategies are more powerful, but a major overhead for large programs is the analysis time spent on each atom, which increases as the knowledge grows. We describe an online strategy whose analysis time for each atom is independent of the amount of knowledge about that atom. This reduces transformation times for programs with large search spaces by an order of magnitude, while retaining the power of online analysis. Correctness, termination and nontriviality are shown.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Partial evaluation of ITE-Prolog can be situated somewhere between partial deduction of pure logic programs and partial evaluation of full Prolog.
“In summary, partial evaluation of ITE-Prolog, can be situated somewhere between partial deduction of pure logic programs (see [60,31,10,69,68] and systems like sP [30,29], sAGE [34,33] or more recently ECCE [50,51,57]) and partial evaluation of full Prolog (e.g. MIXTUs [83,82] or PADDY [76–78]).”
From Creating specialised integrity checks through partial evaluation of meta-interpreters (1998) · cites this paper as [78]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- K. Benkerimi, J. W. Lloyd. A Procedure for the Partial Evaluation of Logic Programs. [37] pp.343-358.
- Leonard A ugustsson. Compiling pattern-match- ing. In Conference on Functional Programming and Computer Architecture (LNCS 2'01, ed Jouan- naud), pages 368-381, Nancy, France, 1985.
- R M Burstall and John Darlington. A transfor- mation system for developing recursive programs. Journal of .Association for Computing Machinery, 24(1):44-67, January 1977.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Controlling generalization and polyvariance in partial deduction of normal logic programs
Leuschel, M., Martens, B., & De Schreye, D. (1998) · ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems · doi:10.1145/271510.271525 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Creating specialised integrity checks through partial evaluation of meta-interpreters
Leuschel, M., & De Schreye, D. (1998) · The Journal of Logic Programming · doi:10.1016/s0743-1066(97)10012-7 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
- Authors
- Prestwich, S.
- Corresponding author
- Prestwich, Steven
- ORCID
- Prestwich, Steven
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 1993 ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Partial evaluation and semantics-based program manipulation - PEPM '93
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 1993
- Pages
- 111-118
- OpenAlex
- W2003412518
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.22
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Partial Evaluation and Program Manipulation (PEPM) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Logic, programming, and type systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Advanced Database Systems and Queries
- Keywords
- partial deduction, logic programs, unfolding, program transformation, analysis time, termination, correctness, non-triviality, search space
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
