This paper presents a study of operational and type-theoretic properties of different resolution strategies in Horn clause logic. We distinguish four different kinds of resolution: resolution by unification (SLD-resolution), resolution by term-matching, the recently introduced structural resolution, and partial (or lazy) resolution. We express them all uniformly as abstract reduction systems, which allows us to undertake a thorough comparative analysis of their properties. To match this small-step semantics, we propose to take Howard's System H as a type-theoretic semantic counterpart. Using System H, we interpret Horn formulas as types, and a derivation for a given formula as the proof term inhabiting the type given by the formula. We prove soundness of these abstract reduction systems relative to System H, and we show completeness of SLD-resolution and structural resolution relative to System H. We identify conditions under which structural resolution is operationally equivalent to SLD-resolution. We show correspondence between term-matching resolution for Horn clause programs without existential variables and term rewriting.
To the best of our knowledge, studying logic programming proof-theoretically dates back to Girard's suggestion to use the cut rule to model resolution for Horn formulas [Chapter 13.4] Girard:1989 . Miller et. al. @cite_0 use cut-free sequent calculus to represent a proof for a query. More specifically, given a query @math and a logic program @math , @math has a refutation iff there is a derivation in cut-free sequent calculus for @math . Using sequent calculus as a proof theoretic framework gives the flexibility to incorporate different kinds of formulas, e.g. classical formulas and linear formulas into this framework.
@cite_0
2093111544 2130162474 2047456744 182717014
Abstract Miller, D., G. Nadathur, F. Pfenning and A. Scedrov, Uniform proofs as a foundation for logic programming, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 51 (1991) 125–157. A proof-theoretic characterization of logical languages that form suitable bases for Prolog-like programming languages is provided. This characterization is based on the principle that the declarative meaning of a logic program, provided by provability in a logical system, should coincide with its operational meaning, provided by interpreting logical connectives as simple and fixed search instructions. The operational semantics is formalized by the identification of a class of cut-free sequent proofs called uniform proofs . A uniform proof is one that can be found by a goal-directed search that respects the interpretation of the logical connectives as search instructions. The concept of a uniform proof is used to define the notion of an abstract logic programming language , and it is shown that first-order and higher-order Horn clauses with classical provability are examples of such a language. Horn clauses are then generalized to hereditary Harrop formulas and it is shown that first-order and higher-order versions of this new class of formulas are also abstract logic programming languages if the inference rules are those of either intuitionistic or minimal logic. The programming language significance of the various generalizations to first-order Horn clauses is briefly discussed. We describe a sound method for automatically proving Hoare triples for loop-free code in Separation Logic, for certain preconditions and postconditions (symbolic heaps). The method uses a form of symbolic execution, a decidable proof theory for symbolic heaps, and extraction of frame axioms from incomplete proofs. This is a precursor to the use of the logic in automatic specification checking, program analysis, and model checking. Abstract Currently known sequent systems for temporal logics such as linear time temporal logic and computation tree logic either rely on a cut rule, an invariant rule, or an infinitary rule. The first and second violate the subformula property and the third has infinitely many premises. We present finitary cut-free invariant-free weakening-free and contraction-free sequent systems for both logics mentioned. In the case of linear time all rules are invertible. The systems are based on annotating fixpoint formulas with a history, an approach which has also been used in game-theoretic characterisations of these logics. Automated verification of multi-threaded programs is difficult. Direct treatment of all possible thread interleavings by reasoning about the program globally is a prohibitively expensive task, even for small programs. Rely-guarantee reasoning is a promising technique to address this challenge by reducing the verification problem to reasoning about each thread individually with the help of assertions about other threads. In this paper, we propose a proof rule that uses rely-guarantee reasoning for compositional verification of termination properties. The crux of our proof rule lies in its compositionality wrt. the thread structure of the program and wrt. the applied termination arguments --- transition invariants. We present a method for automating the proof rule using an abstraction refinement procedure that is based on solving recursion-free Horn clauses. To deal with termination, we extend an existing Horn-clause solver with the capability to handle well-foundedness constraints. Finally, we present an experimental evaluation of our algorithm on a set of micro-benchmarks.