skip to main content
article

Polynomial-time computation via local inference relations

Published:01 October 2002Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We consider the concept of a local set of inference rules. A local rule set can be automatically transformed into a rule set for which bottom-up evaluation terminates in polynomial time. The local-rule-set transformation gives polynomial-time evaluation strategies for a large variety of rule sets that cannot be given terminating evaluation strategies by any other known automatic technique. This article discusses three new results. First, it is shown that every polynomial-time predicate can be defined by an (unstratified) local rule set. Second, a new machine-recognizable subclass of the local rule sets is identified. Finally, we show that locality, as a property of rule sets, is undecidable in general.

References

  1. Basin, D. and Ganzinger, H. 1996. Automated complexity analysis based on ordered resolution. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, Calif. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Basin, D. and Ganzinger, H. 2001. Automated complexity analysis based on ordered resolution. JACM 48, 1, 70--109. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bry, F. 1990. Query evaluation in recursive databases: Bottom-up and top-down reconciled. Data Knowl. Eng. 5, 289--312. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Givan, R., McAllester, D., and Shalaby, S. 1991. Natural language based inference procedures applied to Schubert's steamroller. In Proceedings of AAAI-91. Morgan-Kaufmann, Reading, Mass., pp. 915--920.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Hella, L., Kolaitis, P. G., and Luosto, K. 1997. How to define a linear order on finite models. In Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 87, 241--267.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Immerman, N. 1986. Relational queries computable in polynomial time. Inf. Contr. 68, 86--104. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Immerman, N. 1999. Descriptive Complexity. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Jaffar, J. and Lassez, J. L. 1987. Constraint logic programming. In Proceedings of the 1987 ACM Conference on Principles of Programming Languages. ACM, New York, pp. 111--119. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Jouvelot, P. and Gifford, D. 1991. Algebraic reconstruction of types and effects. In Proceedings of the 1991 ACM Conference on Principles of Programming Languages. ACM, New York. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Knuth, D. E. 1975. Estimating the efficiency of backtrack programs. Math. Comput. 29, (Jan.), 129, 121--136.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Kozen, D. C. 1977. Complexity of finitely presented algebras. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computation. ACM, New York, pp. 164--177. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Mackworth, A. K. 1977. Consistency in networks of relations. Artif. Int. 8, 1, 99--181.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. McAllester, D. A. 1989. Ontic: A Knowledge Representation System for Mathematics. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. McAllester, D. 1993. Automatic recognition of tractability in inference relations. JACM 40, 2 (Apr.), 284--303. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. McAllester, D. A. and Siskind, J. M. 1991. Lifting transformations. MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Memo 1343, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Naughton, J. and Ramakrishnan, R. 1991. Bottom-up evaluation of logic programs. In Computational Logic. J. L. Lassez and G. Plotkin, eds, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Papadimitriou, C. H. 1985. A note on the expressive power of Prolog. EATCS Bull. 26, 21--23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Pearl, J. and Korf, R. 1987. Search techniques. Ann. Rev. Comput. Sci. 2, 451--467.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Shostak, R. 1978. An algorithm for reasoning about equality. Comm. ACM., 21, 2 (July), 583--585. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Talpin, J.-P. and Jouvelot, P. 1992. Type and effect systems. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, Calif., pp. 162--173.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Ullman, J. 1988. Principles of Database and Knowledge-Base Systems. Computer Science Press. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Ullman, J. 1989. Bottom-up beats top-down for datalog. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGACT- SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on the Principles of Database Systems. ACM, New York, pp. 140--149. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. van Hentenryck, P. 1989. Constraint Satisfaction in Logic Programming. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Vardi, M. 1982. The complexity of relational query languages. In Proceedings of the 14th Symposium on Theory of Computation. pp. 137--146. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Polynomial-time computation via local inference relations

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            Full Access

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader