html5-img
1 / 26

Programming Techniques

Programming Techniques. t.k.prasad@wright.edu http://www.knoesis.org/tkprasad/. Generalization/Abstraction. Analogy: [a,b,c]  [f(a),f(b),f(c)] maplist(_,[],[]). maplist(P,[X|T],[NX|NT]) :- G =.. [P,X,NX], call(G), maplist(P,T,NT). (G  p(N,NX)). Application.

enrique-rios
Télécharger la présentation

Programming Techniques

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Programming Techniques t.k.prasad@wright.edu http://www.knoesis.org/tkprasad/ L17ProgTech

  2. Generalization/Abstraction Analogy: [a,b,c]  [f(a),f(b),f(c)] maplist(_,[],[]). maplist(P,[X|T],[NX|NT]) :- G =.. [P,X,NX], call(G), maplist(P,T,NT). (G  p(N,NX)) L17ProgTech

  3. Application transpose([],[]). transpose([[]|_],[]) :- !. transpose([R|Rs],[C|Cs]) :- maplist(first,[R|Rs],C), maplist(rest,[R|Rs],RC), transpose(RC,Cs). first([H|T],H). rest([H|T],T). /* Built-in maplist exists*/ L17ProgTech

  4. Enhancing Efficiency • Interpreted vs Compiled code (order of magnitude improvement observed) • Improving data structures and algorithm • 8-Queens problem, Heuristic Search, Quicksort, etc • Tail-recursive optimization • Memoization • storing partial results / caching intermediate results • Difference lists • DCGs L17ProgTech

  5. (cont’d) • Prolog implementations that index on the first argument of a predicate improve determinism. • Cuts and other meta-programming primitives can be used to program in new search strategies for controlled backtracking. L17ProgTech

  6. Optimizing Fibonacci Number Computation fib(0,0) :- !. fib(1,1) :- !. fib(N,F) :- N1 is N - 1, N2 is N1 -1, fib(N1,F1), fib(N2,F2), F is F1 + F2. ?-fib(5,F). Complexity: Exponential time algorithm L17ProgTech

  7. Fibonacci Call Tree with Parameter Value L17ProgTech

  8. (cont’d) f(0,F,_,F). f(1,_,F,F). f(N,Fpp,Fp,F) :- N >= 2, N1 is N – 1, F0 is Fp + Fpp, f(N1,Fp,F0,F). fib(N,F) :- f(N,0,1,F). ?-fib(5,F). Complexity: Linear time algorithm (tail-recursive version) L17ProgTech

  9. Last call optimization • Activation record normally stores a continuation and a backtrack point, to be used when the goal succeeds or fails respectively. p :- q, r. p :- s. • LCO avoids allocating a new activation record for s, but rather reuses one for p. L17ProgTech

  10. Caching intermediate results • Instead of explicitly modifying the code to improve performance, XSB uses tabling to store intermediate results and avoids recomputing earlier goals. • Ironically, double-recursive (exponential-time) Fibonacci Number definition serves as a benchmark for testing efficiency of implementation of recursion! L17ProgTech

  11. Different Lists : Motivation L17ProgTech

  12. (cont’d) • In Prolog, pointers implementing list structures are not available for inspection/manipulation. Hence, complexity of enqueue (resp. dequeue) is O(1) and that of dequeue (resp. enqueue) is O(n). enqueue(Q,E,[E|Q]). dequeue([E],E). dequeue([_|F|T],E) :- dequeue([F|T],E). • Difference list is a techqniue to get O(1) complexity for both the operations. L17ProgTech

  13. Difference Lists : Details • Represent list L as a difference of two lists L1 and L2 • E.g., consider L = [a,b,c] and various L1-L2 combinations given below. L17ProgTech

  14. Benefit L = L1 – L2 • Both enqueue and dequeue are O(1) operations obtained by cons-ing an element to L1 and L2 respectively. enqueue(L1-L2, E, [E|L1] – L2). dequeue(L1-L2, E, L1 – [E|L2]). E.g., enqueue([a]-[], b, [b,a] – []). dequeue([a]-[], a, [a]–[a]). L17ProgTech

  15. Append using Difference Lists append(X-Y, Y-Z, X-Z). • Ordinary append complexity = O(length of first list) • Difference list append complexity = O(1) X-Z X X-Y Y Y Y-Z Z Z Z L17ProgTech

  16. (cont’d) append(X-Y, Y-Z, X-Z). ?-append([a,b,c|L]-L, [1,2|M]-M, N). X=[a,b,c|L] Y = L Y = [1,2|M] Z = M X – Z = N N= [a,b,c|[1,2|Z]]-Z N= [a,b,c,1,2|Z]]-Z L17ProgTech

  17. Restriction append(X-Y, Y-Z, X-Z). ?-append([a,b,c|[d]]-[d], [1,2]-[], N). • Fails because the second lists must be a variable. Incomplete data structure is a necessity. L17ProgTech

  18. Interpreter-based Semantics vs Declarative Semantics • IS is an over-specification but may provide an efficient implementation. • DS specifies correctness criteria and may permit further optimization. • Overall research goal: Characterize classes of programs for which the declarative and the procedural semantics coincide. L17ProgTech

  19. Relational Algebra (Operations on Relations) • Select, Project, Join, Union, Intersection, difference • Transitive closure cannot be expressed in terms of these operations. • A query language is relationally complete if it can perform the above operations. L17ProgTech

  20. Deductive Databases : Datalog (Function-free/Finite Domain Prolog) • Datalog + Negation is relationally complete. • What effects query evaluation efficiency? • Characteristics of data (cyclic vs acyclic) • Ordering of rules and body literals • Search strategy (top-down vs bottom-up) • Tuple-at-a-time vs Set-at-a-time L17ProgTech

  21. Middle Ground:Top-down vs Bottom-up • Improve efficiency by caching. (cf. tabling) • Remove Incompleteness by loop detection. • Focused search. • Propagate bindings in the query. (cf. Magic sets) In general, the efficiency of query evaluation can be improved by sequencing goals on the basis of their bindings and dependencies among rule literals. L17ProgTech

  22. Heuristics for rearranging rules and body literals for efficiency • Order body literals by decreasing values of failure probability • Order rules by decreasing values of success probability • Order body literals to maximize dependencies among adjacent literals. • Metric for comparison – e.g., extent of base relation graphs inspected L17ProgTech

  23. Backtracking • Chronological • Dependency directed • focus on the reason for backtracking ans(X,Y) :- p(X), q(Y), r(X). p(1). p(2). p(3). q(1). q(2). q(3). r(3). L17ProgTech

  24. Data Dependency Graph p(X), r(X), ans(X,Y) :- q(Y), If r(X) fails, then backtrack to p(X) rather than q(Y). L17ProgTech

  25. Indexing • Prolog indexes on • predicate symbol and arity • principal functor of first argument (cf. constant -> hash) • Randomly accessed rule groups p(a) :- … p(22) :- … p(f(X)) :- … p([]) :- …, p([a]) :- …, … L17ProgTech

  26. Robert Kowalski • Algorithm = Logic + Control Niklaus Wirth • Programs = Data Structures + Algorithms L17ProgTech

More Related