# Programming Techniques - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 26

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.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Programming Techniques

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

## Programming Techniques

L17ProgTech

### 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

### 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

### 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

### (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

### 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

L17ProgTech

### (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

### 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

### 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

L17ProgTech

### (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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### (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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### Indexing

• 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

Robert Kowalski

• Algorithm = Logic + Control

Niklaus Wirth

• Programs = Data Structures + Algorithms

L17ProgTech