Results 1  10
of
20
Higherorder logic programming
 HANDBOOK OF LOGIC IN AI AND LOGIC PROGRAMMING, VOLUME 5: LOGIC PROGRAMMING. OXFORD (1998
"... ..."
OracleBased Checking of Untrusted Software
, 2001
"... We present a variant of ProofCarrying Code (PCC) in which the trusted inference rules are represented as a higherorder logic program, the proof checker is replaced by a nondeterministic higherorder logic interpreter and the proof by an oracle implemented as a stream of bits that resolve the nondet ..."
Abstract

Cited by 55 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present a variant of ProofCarrying Code (PCC) in which the trusted inference rules are represented as a higherorder logic program, the proof checker is replaced by a nondeterministic higherorder logic interpreter and the proof by an oracle implemented as a stream of bits that resolve the nondeterministic interpretation choices. In this setting, ProofCarrying Code allows the receiver of the code the luxury of using nondeterminism in constructing a simple yet powerful checking procedure. This oraclebased variant of PCC is able to adapt quite naturally to situations when the property being checked is simple or there is a fairly directed search procedure for it. As an example, we demonstrate that if PCC is used to verify type safety of assembly language programs compiled from Java source programs, the oracles that are needed are on the average just 12% of the size of the code, which represents an improvement of a factor of 30 over previous syntactic representations of PCC proofs. ...
Protecting Sensitive Attributes in Automated Trust Negotiation
 In ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society
, 2002
"... Exchange of attribute credentials is a means to establish mutual trust between strangers that wish to share resources or conduct business transactions. Automated Trust Negotiation (ATN) is an approach to regulate the flow of sensitive attributes during such an exchange. Recently, it has been noted t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 32 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Exchange of attribute credentials is a means to establish mutual trust between strangers that wish to share resources or conduct business transactions. Automated Trust Negotiation (ATN) is an approach to regulate the flow of sensitive attributes during such an exchange. Recently, it has been noted that early ATN designs do not adequately protect the privacy of negotiating parties. While unauthorized access to credentials can be denied, sensitive information about the attributes they carry may easily be inferred based on the behavior of negotiators faithfully adhering to proposed negotiation procedure. Some proposals for correcting this problem do so by sacrificing the ability to e#ectively use sensitive credentials. We study an alternative design that avoids this pitfall by allowing negotiators to define policy protecting the attribute itself, rather than the credentials that prove it. We show how such a policy can be enforced. We address technical issues with doing this in the context of trust managementstyle credentials, which carry delegations and enable one attribute to be inferred from others, and in the context where credentials are stored in a distributed way, and must be discovered and collected before being used in ATN.
Scoping Constructs In Logic Programming: Implementation Problems And Their Solution
, 1995
"... Machine (WAM). The provision of implications in goals results in the possibility of program clauses being added to the program for the purpose of solving specific subgoals. A naive scheme based on asserting and retracting program clauses does not suffice for implementing such additions for two reaso ..."
Abstract

Cited by 21 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Machine (WAM). The provision of implications in goals results in the possibility of program clauses being added to the program for the purpose of solving specific subgoals. A naive scheme based on asserting and retracting program clauses does not suffice for implementing such additions for two reasons. First, it is necessary to also support the resurrection of an earlier existing program in the face of backtracking. Second, the possibility for implication goals to be surrounded by quantifiers requires a consideration of the parameterization of program clauses by bindings for their free variables. Devices for supporting these additional requirements are described as also is the integration of these devices into the WAM. Further extensions to the machine are outlined for handling higherorder additions to the language. The ideas Work on this paper has been partially supported by NSF Grants CCR8905825 and CCR 9208465. Address correspondence to Gopalan Nadathur, Department of Compute...
Uniform Proofs and Disjunctive Logic Programming (Extended Abstract)
, 1995
"... ) y Gopalan Nadathur z Donald W. Loveland Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science University of Chicago Duke University 1100 E 58th Street, Chicago, IL 60637 Box 90129, Durham, NC 277080129 gopalan@cs.uchicago.edu dwl@cs.duke.edu Abstract One formulation of the concept of ..."
Abstract

Cited by 10 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
) y Gopalan Nadathur z Donald W. Loveland Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science University of Chicago Duke University 1100 E 58th Street, Chicago, IL 60637 Box 90129, Durham, NC 277080129 gopalan@cs.uchicago.edu dwl@cs.duke.edu Abstract One formulation of the concept of logic programming is the notion of Abstract Logic Programming Language, introduced in [8]. Central to that definition is uniform proof, which enforces the requirements of inference direction, including goaldirectedness, and the duality of readings, declarative and procedural. We use this technology to investigate Disjunctive Logic Programming (DLP), an extension of traditional logic programming that permits disjunctive program clauses. This extension has been considered by some to be inappropriately identified with logic programming because the indefinite reasoning introduced by disjunction violates the goaloriented search directionality central to logic programming. We overcome this crit...
Constraint Logic Programming with Hereditary Harrop Formulas
, 1997
"... Constraint Logic Programming (CLP) and Hereditary Harrop Formulas (HH)are two well known ways to enhance the expressivity of Horn clauses. In this paper, we present a novel combination of these two approaches. We show how to enrich the syntax and proof theory of HH with the help of a given constrain ..."
Abstract

Cited by 10 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Constraint Logic Programming (CLP) and Hereditary Harrop Formulas (HH)are two well known ways to enhance the expressivity of Horn clauses. In this paper, we present a novel combination of these two approaches. We show how to enrich the syntax and proof theory of HH with the help of a given constraint system, in such a way that the key property of HH as a logic programming language (namely, the existence of uniform proofs) is preserved. We also present a procedure for goal solving, showing its soundness and completeness for computing answer constraints. As a consequence of this result, we obtain a new strong completeness theorem for CLP that avoids the need to build disjunctions of computed answers, as well as a more abstract formulation of a known completeness theorem for HH.
Implementing a Notion of Modules in the Logic Programming Language Prolog
 In Evelina Lamma and Paola Mello, editors, Extensions of Logic Programming: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop
, 1993
"... Issues concerning the implementation of a notion of modules in the higherorder logic programming language Prolog are examined. A program in this language is a composite of type declarations and procedure definitions. The module construct that is considered permits large collections of such declarat ..."
Abstract

Cited by 10 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Issues concerning the implementation of a notion of modules in the higherorder logic programming language Prolog are examined. A program in this language is a composite of type declarations and procedure definitions. The module construct that is considered permits large collections of such declarations and definitions to be decomposed into smaller units. Mechanisms are provided for controlling the interaction of these units and for restricting the visibility of names used within any unit. The typical interaction between modules has both a static and a dynamic nature. The parsing of expressions in a module might require declarations in a module that it interacts with, and this information must be available during compilation. Procedure definitions within a module might utilize procedures presented in other modules and support must be provided for making the appropriate invocation during execution. Our concern here is largely with the dynamic aspects of module interaction. We describe a...
Uniform Provability in Classical Logic
 Journal of Logic and Computation
, 1996
"... Uniform proofs are sequent calculus proofs with the following characteristic: the last step in the derivation of a complex formula at any stage in the proof is always the introduction of the toplevel logical symbol of that formula. We investigate the relevance of this uniform proof notion to struct ..."
Abstract

Cited by 7 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Uniform proofs are sequent calculus proofs with the following characteristic: the last step in the derivation of a complex formula at any stage in the proof is always the introduction of the toplevel logical symbol of that formula. We investigate the relevance of this uniform proof notion to structuring proof search in classical logic. A logical language in whose context provability is equivalent to uniform provability admits of a goaldirected proof procedure that interprets logical symbols as search directives whose meanings are given by the corresponding inference rules. While this uniform provability property does not hold directly of classical logic, we show that it holds of a fragment of it that only excludes essentially positive occurrences of universal quantifiers under a modest, sound, modification to the set of assumptions: the addition to them of the negation of the formula being proved. We further note that all uses of the added formula can be factored into certain derived...
Proof Procedures for Logic Programming
, 1994
"... Proof procedures are an essential part of logic applied to artificial intelligence tasks, and form the basis for logic programming languages. As such, many of the chapters throughout this handbook utilize, or study, proof procedures. The study of proof procedures that are useful in artificial intell ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Proof procedures are an essential part of logic applied to artificial intelligence tasks, and form the basis for logic programming languages. As such, many of the chapters throughout this handbook utilize, or study, proof procedures. The study of proof procedures that are useful in artificial intelligence would require a large book so we focus on proof procedures that relate to logic programming. We begin with the resolution procedures that influenced the definition of SLDresolution, the procedure upon which Prolog is built. Starting with the general resolution procedure we move through linear resolution to a very restricted linear resolution, SLresolution, which actually is not a resolution restriction, but a variant using an augmented logical form. (SLresolution actually is a derivative of the Model Elimination procedure, which was developed independently of resolution.) We then consider logic programming itself, reviewing SLDresolution and then describing a general criterion for ...