1,678 research outputs found

    A compositional Semantics for CHR

    Full text link
    Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) are a committed-choice declarative language which has been designed for writing constraint solvers. A CHR program consists of multi-headed guarded rules which allow one to rewrite constraints into simpler ones until a solved form is reached. CHR has received a considerable attention, both from the practical and from the theoretical side. Nevertheless, due the use of multi-headed clauses, there are several aspects of the CHR semantics which have not been clarified yet. In particular, no compositional semantics for CHR has been defined so far. In this paper we introduce a fix-point semantics which characterizes the input/output behavior of a CHR program and which is and-compositional, that is, which allows to retrieve the semantics of a conjunctive query from the semantics of its components. Such a semantics can be used as a basis to define incremental and modular analysis and verification tools

    Solving XCSP problems by using Gecode

    Get PDF
    Gecode is one of the most efficient libraries that can be used for constraint solving. However, using it requires dealing with C++ programming details. On the other hand several formats for representing constraint networks have been proposed. Among them, XCSP has been proposed as a format based on XML which allows us to represent constraints defined either extensionally or intensionally, permits global constraints and has been the standard format of the international competition of constraint satisfaction problems solvers. In this paper we present a plug-in for solving problems specified in XCSP by exploiting the Gecode solver. This is done by dynamically translating constraints into Gecode library calls, thus avoiding the need to interact with C++.Comment: 5 pages, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-810 CILC 201

    SUNNY-CP and the MiniZinc Challenge

    Get PDF
    In Constraint Programming (CP) a portfolio solver combines a variety of different constraint solvers for solving a given problem. This fairly recent approach enables to significantly boost the performance of single solvers, especially when multicore architectures are exploited. In this work we give a brief overview of the portfolio solver sunny-cp, and we discuss its performance in the MiniZinc Challenge---the annual international competition for CP solvers---where it won two gold medals in 2015 and 2016. Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP)Comment: Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP

    Spin-mixing Interferometry with Bose-Einstein Condensates

    Full text link
    Unstable spinor Bose-Einstein condensates are ideal candidates to create nonlinear three-mode interferometers. Our analysis goes beyond the standard SU(1,1) parametric approach and therefore provides the regime of parameters where sub shot-noise sensitivities can be reached with respect to the input total average number of particles. Decoherence due to particle losses and finite detection efficiency are also considered.Comment: 5 pages, 4 figure

    A Multicore Tool for Constraint Solving

    Get PDF
    *** To appear in IJCAI 2015 proceedings *** In Constraint Programming (CP), a portfolio solver uses a variety of different solvers for solving a given Constraint Satisfaction / Optimization Problem. In this paper we introduce sunny-cp2: the first parallel CP portfolio solver that enables a dynamic, cooperative, and simultaneous execution of its solvers in a multicore setting. It incorporates state-of-the-art solvers, providing also a usable and configurable framework. Empirical results are very promising. sunny-cp2 can even outperform the performance of the oracle solver which always selects the best solver of the portfolio for a given problem

    Transformations of CCP programs

    Get PDF
    We introduce a transformation system for concurrent constraint programming (CCP). We define suitable applicability conditions for the transformations which guarantee that the input/output CCP semantics is preserved also when distinguishing deadlocked computations from successful ones and when considering intermediate results of (possibly) non-terminating computations. The system allows us to optimize CCP programs while preserving their intended meaning: In addition to the usual benefits that one has for sequential declarative languages, the transformation of concurrent programs can also lead to the elimination of communication channels and of synchronization points, to the transformation of non-deterministic computations into deterministic ones, and to the crucial saving of computational space. Furthermore, since the transformation system preserves the deadlock behavior of programs, it can be used for proving deadlock freeness of a given program wrt a class of queries. To this aim it is sometimes sufficient to apply our transformations and to specialize the resulting program wrt the given queries in such a way that the obtained program is trivially deadlock free.Comment: To appear in ACM TOPLA

    On the Expressive Power of Multiple Heads in CHR

    Full text link
    Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) is a committed-choice declarative language which has been originally designed for writing constraint solvers and which is nowadays a general purpose language. CHR programs consist of multi-headed guarded rules which allow to rewrite constraints into simpler ones until a solved form is reached. Many empirical evidences suggest that multiple heads augment the expressive power of the language, however no formal result in this direction has been proved, so far. In the first part of this paper we analyze the Turing completeness of CHR with respect to the underneath constraint theory. We prove that if the constraint theory is powerful enough then restricting to single head rules does not affect the Turing completeness of the language. On the other hand, differently from the case of the multi-headed language, the single head CHR language is not Turing powerful when the underlying signature (for the constraint theory) does not contain function symbols. In the second part we prove that, no matter which constraint theory is considered, under some reasonable assumptions it is not possible to encode the CHR language (with multi-headed rules) into a single headed language while preserving the semantics of the programs. We also show that, under some stronger assumptions, considering an increasing number of atoms in the head of a rule augments the expressive power of the language. These results provide a formal proof for the claim that multiple heads augment the expressive power of the CHR language.Comment: v.6 Minor changes, new formulation of definitions, changed some details in the proof
    corecore