%20-%20https://sketch.com%20--%3e%3ctitle%3e3ECBBF50-FD08-412A-943D-2CFC5E025A16%3c/title%3e%3cdesc%3eCreated%20with%20sketchtool.%3c/desc%3e%3cg%20id='Stylesheet'%20stroke='none'%20stroke-width='1'%20fill='none'%20fill-rule='evenodd'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(-926.000000,%20-668.000000)'%20id='BUTTONS'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(100.000000,%20597.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='BTN-/-RIGHTS'%20transform='translate(816.000000,%2065.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='ICON-/-Rights'%20transform='translate(10.000000,%206.000000)'%3e%3cpath%20d='M13.5752841,0%20L1.34943182,0%20C0.59375,0%200,0.586666667%200,1.33333333%20L0,22.6666667%20C0,23.4133333%200.620738636,24%201.34943182,24%20L17.6505682,24%20C18.40625,24%2019,23.3866667%2019,22.6666667%20L19,5.36%20L13.5752841,0%20Z%20M13.5752841,1.89333333%20L17.0838068,5.36%20L13.5752841,5.36%20L13.5752841,1.89333333%20Z%20M1.34943182,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,5.36%20C12.1988636,6.10666667%2012.7926136,6.69333333%2013.5482955,6.69333333%20L17.6235795,6.69333333%20L17.6505682,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,22.6666667%20Z'%20id='Shape'%20fill='%23595959'%20fill-rule='nonzero'%3e%3c/path%3e%3ccircle%20id='Oval'%20stroke='%23595959'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20fill='%23595959'%20cx='9.5'%20cy='13.5355339'%20r='5.5'%3e%3c/circle%3e%3cpolyline%20id='Path-2'%20stroke='%23FFFFFF'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20transform='translate(9.500000,%2013.035534)%20rotate(45.000000)%20translate(-9.500000,%20-13.035534)%20'%20points='8%2016.0355339%2011%2016.0355339%2011%2010.0355339'%3e%3c/polyline%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
As time goes by: Constraint Handling Rules
A survey of CHR research from 1998 to 2007
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 December 2009
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.
Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) is a high-level programming language based on multiheaded multiset rewrite rules. Originally designed for writing user-defined constraint solvers, it is now recognized as an elegant general purpose language. Constraint Handling Rules related research has surged during the decade following the previous survey by Frühwirth (J. Logic Programming, Special Issue on Constraint Logic Programming, 1998, vol. 37, nos. 1–3, pp. 95–138). Covering more than 180 publications, this new survey provides an overview of recent results in a wide range of research areas, from semantics and analysis to systems, extensions, and applications.
Information
- Type
- Regular Papers
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009
References
Abdennadher, S. 2000. A language for experimenting with declarative paradigms. In RCoRP '00(bis): Proc. 2nd Workshop on Rule-Based Constraint Reasoning and Programming, Frühwirth, T. et al. , Eds.Google Scholar
Abdennadher, S. 2001. Rule-based constraint programming: Theory and practice. Habilitationsschrift. Institute of Computer Science, LMU, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
Abdennadher, S. and Christiansen, H. 2000. An experimental CLP platform for integrity constraints and abduction. In FQAS '00: Proc. 4th Intl. Conf. Flexible Query Answering Systems, Larsen, H. L., Kacprzyk, J., Zadrozny, S., Andreasen, T., and Christiansen, H., Eds. Springer, 141–152.Google Scholar
Abdennadher, S. and Frühwirth, T. 1998. On completion of Constraint Handling Rules. In CP '98, Maher, M. J. and Puget, J.-F., Eds. LNCS, vol. 1520. Springer, 25–39.Google Scholar
Abdennadher, S. and Frühwirth, T. 1999. Operational equivalence of CHR programs and constraints. In CP '99, Jaffar, J., Ed. LNCS, vol. 1713. Springer, 43–57.Google Scholar
Abdennadher, S. and Frühwirth, T. 2004. Integration and optimization of rule-based constraint solvers. In LOPSTR '03, Bruynooghe, M., Ed. LNCS, vol. 3018. Springer, 198–213.Google Scholar
Abdennadher, S., Frühwirth, T. and Holzbaur, C., Eds. 2005. Special Issue on Constraint Handling Rules. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, vol. 5(4–5).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdennadher, S., Frühwirth, T. and Meuss, H. 1999. Confluence and semantics of constraint simplification rules. Constraints 4, 2, 133–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdennadher, S., Krämer, E., Saft, M. and Schmauss, M. 2002. JACK: A Java Constraint Kit. In WFLP '01: Proc. 10th Intl. Workshop on Functional and (Constraint) Logic Programming, Selected Papers, Hanus, M., Ed. ENTCS, vol. 64. Elsevier, 1–17. See also URL: http://pms.ifi.lmu.de/software/jack/.Google Scholar
Abdennadher, S. and Marte, M. 2000. University course timetabling using Constraint Handling Rules. In Holzbaur and Frühwirth (2000b), 311–325.Google Scholar
Abdennadher, S., Olama, A., Salem, N. and Thabet, A. 2006. ARM: Automatic rule miner. In LOPSTR '06, Revised Selected Papers, Puelda, G., Ed. LNCS, vol. 4407. Springer.Google Scholar
Abdennadher, S. and Rigotti, C. 2004. Automatic generation of rule-based constraint solvers over finite domains. ACM TOCL 5, 2, 177–205.Google Scholar
Abdennadher, S. and Rigotti, C. 2005. Automatic generation of CHR constraint solvers. In Abdennadher et al. (2005), 403–418.Google Scholar
Abdennadher, S. and Saft, M. 2001. A visualization tool for Constraint Handling Rules. In WLPE '01, Kusalik, A., Ed.Google Scholar
Abdennadher, S., Saft, M. and Will, S. 2000. Classroom assignment using constraint logic programming. In PACLP '00: Proc. 2nd Intl. Conf. and Exhibition on Practical Application of Constraint Technologies and Logic Programming.Google Scholar
Abdennadher, S. and Schütz, H. 1998. CHR∨, a flexible query language. In FQAS '98: Proc. 3rd Intl. Conf. on Flexible Query Answering Systems, Andreasen, T., Christiansen, H. and Larsen, H., Eds. LNAI, vol. 1495. Springer, 1–14.Google Scholar
Abdennadher, S. and Sobhi, I. 2008. Generation of rule-based constraint solvers: Combined approach. In LOPSTR '07, Revised Selected Papers, King, A., Ed. LNCS, vol. 4915. Springer.Google Scholar
Aguilar-Solis, D. and Dahl, V. 2004. Coordination revisited – a Constraint Handling Rule approach. In IBERAMIA '04: Proc. 9th Ibero-American Conf. on AI, Lemaitre, C., Reyes, C. A., and Gonzalez, J. A., Eds. LNCS, vol. 3315. Springer. 315–324.Google Scholar
Alberti, M., Chesani, F., Gavanelli, M. and Lamma, E. 2005. The CHR-based implementation of a system for generation and confirmation of hypotheses. In Wolf et al. (2005), 111–122.Google Scholar
Alberti, M., Daolio, D., Torroni, P., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E. and Mello, P. 2004. Specification and verification of agent interaction protocols in a logic-based system. In SAC '04: Proc. 19th ACM Symp. Applied Computing, Haddad, H. et al. , Eds. ACM Press, 72–78.Google Scholar
Alberti, M., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Chesani, F., Mello, P. and Torroni, P. 2006. Compliance verification of agent interaction: A logic-based software tool. Applied Artificial Intelligence 20, 2–4, 133–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alberti, M., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P. and Milano, M. 2005. A CHR-based implementation of known arc-consistency. In Abdennadher et al. (2005), 419–440.Google Scholar
Alberti, M., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P. and Torroni, P. 2004. Specification and verification of agent interaction using social integrity constraints. In LCMAS'03: Logic and Communication in Multi-Agent Systems. ENTCS, vol. 85(2). Elsevier, 94–116.Google Scholar
Alves, S. and Florido, M. 2002. Type inference using Constraint Handling Rules. In WFLP '01: Proc. 10th Intl. Workshop on Functional and (Constraint) Logic Programming, Selected Papers, Hanus, M., Ed. ENTCS, vol. 64. Elsevier, 56–72.Google Scholar
Apt, K. R. and Monfroy, E. 2001. Constraint programming viewed as rule-based programming. TPLP 1, 6, 713–750.Google Scholar
Badea, L., Tilivea, D. and Hotaran, A. 2004. Semantic Web Reasoning for Ontology-Based Integration of Resources. In PPSWR '04: Workshop on Principles And Practice Of Semantic Web Reasoning, Ohlbach, H. J., Schaffert, S., Eds. LNCS, vol. 3208. Springer, 61–75.Google Scholar
Barranco-Mendoza, A. 2005. Stochastic and heuristic modelling for analysis of the growth of pre-invasive lesions and for a multidisciplinary approach to early cancer diagnosis. Ph.D. thesis, Simon Fraser University, Canada.Google Scholar
Bavarian, M. and Dahl, V. 2006. Constraint based methods for biological sequence analysis. Journal of Universal Computer Science 12, 11, 1500–1520.Google Scholar
Bès, G. G. and Dahl, V. 2003. Balanced parentheses in NL texts: A useful cue in the syntax/semantics interface. In Proc. Lorraine-Saarland Workshop on Prospects and Advances in the Syntax/Semantics Interface. Poster Paper.Google Scholar
Betz, H. 2007. Relating coloured Petri nets to Constraint Handling Rules. In Djelloul et al. (2007), 33–47.Google Scholar
Betz, H. and Frühwirth, T. 2005. A linear-logic semantics for Constraint Handling Rules. In CP '05, van Beek, P., Ed. LNCS, vol. 3709. Springer, 137–151.Google Scholar
Betz, H. and Frühwirth, T. 2007. A linear-logic semantics for Constraint Handling Rules with disjunction. In Djelloul et al. (2007), 17–31.Google Scholar
Bistarelli, S., Frühwirth, T., Marte, M. and Rossi, F. 2004. Soft constraint propagation and solving in Constraint Handling Rules. Computational Intelligence: Special Issue on Preferences in AI and CP 20, 2 (May), 287–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boespflug, M. 2007. TaiChi: How to check your types with serenity. The Monad. Reader 9, 17–31.Google Scholar
Bouissou, O. 2004. A CHR Library for SiLCC. Diploma Thesis. Technical University of Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Brand, S. 2002. A note on redundant rules in rule-based constraint programming. In Joint ERCIM/CologNet Intl. Workshop on Constraint Solving and Constraint Logic Programming, Selected papers. LNCS, vol. 2627. Springer, 279–336.Google Scholar
Brand, S. and Monfroy, E. 2003. Deductive generation of constraint propagation rules. In RULE '03: 4th Intl. Workshop on Rule-Based Programming, Vidal, G., Ed. ENTCS, vol. 86 (2). Elsevier, 45–60.Google Scholar
Bressan, S. and Goh, C. H. 1998. Answering queries in context. In FQAS '98: Proc. 3rd Intl. Conf. on Flexible Query Answering Systems, Andreasen, T., Christiansen, H. and Larsen, H., Eds. LNAI, vol. 1495. Springer, 68–82.Google Scholar
Cabedo, L. M. and Escrig, M. T. 2003. Modeling motion by the integration of topology and time. Journal of Universal Computer Science 9, 9, 1096–1122.Google Scholar
Chin, W.-N., Craciun, F., Khoo, S.-C. and Popeea, C. 2006. A flow-based approach for variant parametric types. SIGPLAN Not. 41, 10, 273–290.Google Scholar
Chin, W.-N., Sulzmann, M. and Wang, M. 2003. A Type-Safe Embedding of Constraint Handling Rules into Haskell. Honors Thesis. School of Computing, National University of Singapore.Google Scholar
Christiansen, H. 2006. On the implementation of global abduction. In CLIMA '06: 7th Intl. Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems – Revised, Selected and Invited Papers, Inoue, K., Satoh, K. and Toni, F., Eds. LNCS, vol. 4371. Springer, 226–245.Google Scholar
Christiansen, H. and Dahl, V. 2003. Logic grammars for diagnosis and repair. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools 12, 3, 227–248.Google Scholar
Christiansen, H. and Dahl, V. 2005a. HYPROLOG: A new logic programming language with assumptions and abduction. In Gabbrielli and Gupta (2005), 159–173.Google Scholar
Christiansen, H. and Dahl, V. 2005b. Meaning in context. In CONTEXT '05: Proc. 4th Intl. and Interdisciplinary Conf. Modeling and Using Context, Carbonell, J. G. and Siekmann, J., Eds. LNAI, vol. 3554. Springer, 97–111.Google Scholar
Christiansen, H. and Have, C. T. 2007. From use cases to UML class diagrams using logic grammars and constraints. In RANLP '07: Proc. Intl. Conf. Recent Adv. Nat. Lang. Processing. 128–132.Google Scholar
Christiansen, H. and Martinenghi, D. 2000. Symbolic constraints for meta-logic programming. In Holzbaur and Frühwirth (2000b), 345–367.Google Scholar
Coquery, E. and Fages, F. 2003. TCLP: A type checker for CLP(
). In WLPE '03, Mesnard, F. and Serebrenik, A., Eds. K.U.Leuven, Department of Computer Science, Technical report CW 371. 17–30.Google Scholar
). In WLPE '03, Mesnard, F. and Serebrenik, A., Eds. K.U.Leuven, Department of Computer Science, Technical report CW 371. 17–30.Google ScholarCoquery, E. and Fages, F. 2005. A type system for CHR. In Schrijvers and Frühwirth (2005b), 19–33.Google Scholar
Dahl, V. 2004. An abductive treatment of long distance dependencies in CHR. In CSLP '04: Proc. First Intl. Workshop on Constraint Solving and Language Processing, Christiansen, H., Skadhauge, P. R., and Villadsen, J., Eds. LNCS, vol. 3438. Springer, 17–31. Invited Paper.Google Scholar
Dahl, V. and Blache, P. 2005. Extracting selected phrases through constraint satisfaction. In Proc. 2nd Intl. Workshop on Constraint Solving and Language Processing.Google Scholar
Dahl, V. and Gu, B. 2006. Semantic property grammars for knowledge extraction from biomedical text. In Etalle and Truszczynski (2006), 442–443. Poster Paper.Google Scholar
Dahl, V. and Gu, B. 2007. A CHRG analysis of ambiguity in biological texts. In CSLP '07: Proc. 4th Intl. Workshop on Constraints and Language Processing. Extended Abstract.Google Scholar
Dahl, V. and Niemelä, I., Eds. 2007. ICLP '07: Proc. 23rd Intl. Conf. Logic Programming. LNCS, vol. 4670. Springer.Google Scholar
Dahl, V. and Voll, K. 2004. Concept formation rules: An executable cognitive model of knowledge construction. In NLUCS '04: Proc. First Intl. Workshop on Natural Language Understanding and Cognitive Sciences, Christiansen, H. and Villadsen, J., Eds. Computer Science technical report no. 113, Roskilde University.Google Scholar
De Koninck, L., Schrijvers, T. and Demoen, B. 2006a. INCLP()—Interval-based nonlinear constraint logic programming over the reals. In Fink et al. (2006), 91–100.Google Scholar
)—Interval-based nonlinear constraint logic programming over the reals. In Fink et al. (2006), 91–100.Google ScholarDe Koninck, L., Schrijvers, T. and Demoen, B. 2006b. Search strategies in CHR(Prolog). In Schrijvers and Frühwirth (2006), 109–123.Google Scholar
De Koninck, L., Schrijvers, T. and Demoen, B. 2007a. The correspondence between the Logical Algorithms language and CHR. In Dahl and Niemelä (2007), 209–223.Google Scholar
De Koninck, L., Schrijvers, T. and Demoen, B. 2007b. User-definable rule priorities for CHR. In PPDP '07, Leuschel, M. and Podelski, A., Eds. ACM Press, 25–36.Google Scholar
De Koninck, L., and Sneyers, J. 2007. Join ordering for Constraint Handling Rules. In Djelloul et al. (2007), 107–121.Google Scholar
De Koninck, L., Stuckey, P. J. and Duck, G. J. 2008. Optimizing compilation of CHR with rule priorities. In Proc. 9th Intl. Symp. Functional and Logic Programming, Garrigue, J. and Hermenegildo, M., Eds. LNCS, vol. 4989. Springer, 32–47.Google Scholar
Delzanno, G., Gabbrielli, M. and Meo, M. C. 2005. A compositional semantics for CHR. In PPDP '05, Barahona, P. and Felty, A., Eds. ACM Press, 209–217.Google Scholar
Demoen, B. and Lifschitz, V., Eds. 2004. ICLP '04: Proc. 20th Intl. Conf. Logic Programming. LNCS, vol. 3132. Springer.Google Scholar
Djelloul, K., Dao, T.-B.-H. and Frühwirth, T. 2007. Toward a first-order extension of Prolog's unification using CHR: A CHR first-order constraint solver over finite or infinite trees. In SAC '07: Proc. 2007 ACM Symp. Applied computing, Cho, Y., Wainwright, R. L., Haddad, H., Shin, S. Y., and Koo, Y. W., Eds. ACM Press, 58–64.Google Scholar
Djelloul, K., Duck, G. J. and Sulzmann, M., Eds. 2007. CHR '07: Proc. 4th Workshop on Constraint Handling Rules.Google Scholar
Ducassé, M. 1999. Opium: an extendable trace analyzer for Prolog. J. Logic Programming 39, 1–3, 177–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duck, G. J. 2005. Compilation of Constraint Handling Rules. Ph.D. thesis, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
Duck, G. J. and Schrijvers, T. 2005. Accurate functional dependency analysis for Constraint Handling Rules. In Schrijvers and Frühwirth (2005b), 109–124.Google Scholar
Duck, G. J., Stuckey, P. J. and Brand, S. 2006. ACD term rewriting. In Etalle and Truszczynski (2006), 117–131.Google Scholar
Duck, G. J., Stuckey, P. J., García de la Banda, M. and Holzbaur, C. 2003. Extending arbitrary solvers with Constraint Handling Rules. In PPDP '03. ACM Press, 79–90.Google Scholar
Duck, G. J., Stuckey, P. J., García de la Banda, M. and Holzbaur, C. 2004. The refined operational semantics of Constraint Handling Rules. In Demoen and Lifschitz (2004), 90–104.Google Scholar
Duck, G. J., Stuckey, P. J. and Sulzmann, M. 2007. Observable confluence for Constraint Handling Rules. In Dahl and Niemelä (2007), 224–239.Google Scholar
Escrig, M. T. and Toledo, F. 1998a. A framework based on CLP extended with CHRs for reasoning with qualitative orientation and positional information. J. Visual Languages and Computing 9, 1, 81–101.Google Scholar
Escrig, M. T. and Toledo, F. 1998b. Qualitative Spatial Reasoning: Theory and Practice—Application to Robot Navigation. IOS Press.Google Scholar
Etalle, S. and Truszczynski, M., Eds. 2006. ICLP '06: Proc. 22nd Intl. Conf. Logic Programming. LNCS, vol. 4079. Springer.Google Scholar
Fink, M., Tompits, H. and Woltran, S., Eds. 2006. WLP '06: Proc. 20th Workshop on Logic Programming. T. U. Wien, Austria, INFSYS Research report 1843-06-02.Google Scholar
Firat, A. 2003. Information Integration Using Contextual Knowledge and Ontology Merging. Ph.D. Thesis, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T. 1992. Constraint Simplification Rules. Tech. Rep. ECRC-92-18, European Computer-Industry Research Centre, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T. 1995. Constraint handling rules. In Constraint Programming: Basic and Trends—Selected Papers of the 22nd Spring School in Theoretical Computer Sciences, May 16–20, 1994, Podelski, A., Ed. LNCS, vol. 910. Springer, 90–107.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T. 1998. Theory and practice of Constraint Handling Rules. Journal of Logic Programming, Special Issue on Constraint Logic Programming 37, 1–3, 95–138.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T. 2000. Proving termination of constraint solver programs. In New Trends in Constraints, Joint ERCIM/Compulog Net Workshop, October 1999, Selected papers, Apt, K., Kakas, A., Monfroy, E. and Rossi, F., Eds. LNCS, vol. 1865. Springer, 298–317.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T. 2001. On the number of rule applications in constraint programs. In Declarative Programming—Selected Papers from AGP 2000, Dovier, A., Meo, M. C. and Omicini, A., Eds. ENTCS, vol. 48. Elsevier, 147–166.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T. 2002a. As time goes by: Automatic complexity analysis of simplification rules. In KR '02: Proc. 8th Intl. Conf. Princ. Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Fensel, D., Giunchiglia, F., McGuinness, D. and Williams, M.-A., Eds. Morgan Kaufmann, 547–557.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T. 2002b. As time goes by II: More automatic complexity analysis of concurrent rule programs. In QAPL '01: Proc. First Intl. Workshop on Quantitative Aspects of Programming Languages, Pierro, A. D. and Wiklicky, H., Eds. ENTCS, vol. 59(3). Elsevier.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T. 2005a. Logical rules for a lexicographic order constraint solver. In Schrijvers and Frühwirth (2005b), 79–91.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T. 2005b. Parallelizing union-find in Constraint Handling Rules using confluence. In Gabbrielli and Gupta (2005), 113–127.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T. 2005c. Specialization of concurrent guarded multi-set transformation rules. In LOPSTR '04, Etalle, S., Ed. LNCS, vol. 3573. Springer, 133–148.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T. 2006a. Complete propagation rules for lexicographic order constraints over arbitrary domains. In Recent Advances in Constraints, CSCLP '05: Joint ERCIM/CoLogNET Intl. Workshop on Constraint Solving and CLP, Revised Selected and Invited Papers. LNAI, vol. 3978. Springer.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T. 2006b. Deriving linear-time algorithms from union-find in CHR. In Schrijvers and Frühwirth (2006), 49–60.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T. 2007. Description logic and rules the CHR way. In Djelloul et al. (2007), 49–61.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T. et al. , Eds. 2000. RCoRP '00: Proc. 1st Workshop on Rule-Based Constraint Reasoning and Programming.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T. and Abdennadher, S. 2001. The Munich rent advisor: A success for logic programming on the internet. The Journal of Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1, 3, 303–319.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T. and Abdennadher, S. 2003. Essentials of Constraint Programming. Springer.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T. and Brisset, P. 1995. High-Level Implementations of Constraint Handling Rules. Tech. Rep. ECRC-95-20, European Computer-Industry Research Centre.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T. and Brisset, P. 1998. Optimal placement of base stations in wireless indoor telecommunication. In CP '98, Maher, M. J. and Puget, J.-F., Eds. LNCS, vol. 1520. Springer, 476–480.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T. and Brisset, P. 2000. Placing base stations in wireless indoor communication networks. IEEE Intelligent Systems and Their Applications 15, 1, 49–53.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T., Di Pierro, A. and Wiklicky, H. 2002. Probabilistic Constraint Handling Rules. In WFLP '02: Proc. 11th Intl. Workshop on Functional and (Constraint) Logic Programming, Selected Papers, Comini, M. and Falaschi, M., Eds. ENTCS, vol. 76. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T. and Holzbaur, C. 2003. Source-to-source transformation for a class of expressive rules. In AGP '03: Joint Conf. Declarative Programming APPIA-GULP-PRODE, Buccafurri, F., Ed. 386–397.Google Scholar
Frühwirth, T. and Meister, M., Eds. 2004. CHR '04: 1st Workshop on Constraint Handling Rules: Selected Contributions.Google Scholar
Gabbrielli, M. and Gupta, G., Eds. 2005. ICLP '05: Proc. 21st Intl. Conf. Logic Programming. LNCS, vol. 3668. Springer.Google Scholar
Gabbrielli, M. and Meo, M. C. 2009. A compositional semantics for CHR. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 10, 2.Google Scholar
Ganzinger, H. and McAllester, D. A. 2002. Logical algorithms. In Stuckey (2002), 209–223.Google Scholar
Garat, D. and Wonsever, D. 2002. A constraint parser for contextual rules. In Proc. 22nd Intl. Conf. of the Chilean Computer Science Society. IEEE Computer Society, 234–242.Google Scholar
Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., et al. 2003. Interpreting abduction in CLP. In AGP '03: Joint Conf. Declarative Programming APPIA-GULP-PRODE, Buccafurri, F., Ed. 25–35.Google Scholar
Geurts, J., van Ossenbruggen, J. and Hardman, L. 2001. Application-specific constraints for multimedia presentation generation. In MMM '01: Proc. 8th Intl. Conf. on Multimedia Modeling. 247–266.Google Scholar
Gouraud, S.-D. and Gotlieb, A. 2006. Using CHRs to generate functional test cases for the Java card virtual machine. In PADL '06: Proc. 8th Intl. Symp. Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages, Van Hentenryck, P., Ed. LNCS, vol. 3819. Springer, 1–15.Google Scholar
Haemmerlé, R. and Fages, F. 2007. Abstract critical pairs and confluence of arbitrary binary relations. In RTA '07: Proc. 18th Intl. Conf. Term Rewriting and Applications. LNCS, vol. 4533. Springer.Google Scholar
Hanus, M. 2006. Adding Constraint Handling Rules to Curry. In Fink et al. (2006), 81–90.Google Scholar
Hecksher, T., Nielsen, S. T. and Pigeon, A. 2002. A CHRG model of the ancient Egyptian grammar. Unpublished student project report, Roskilde University, Denmark.Google Scholar
Holzbaur, C. and Frühwirth, T. 1998. Constraint Handling Rules Reference Manual, Release 2.2. Tech. Rep. TR-98-01, Österreichisches Forschungsinstitut für Artificial Intelligence, Wien.Google Scholar
Holzbaur, C. and Frühwirth, T. 1999. Compiling Constraint Handling Rules into prolog with attributed variables. In PPDP '99, Nadathur, G., Ed. LNCS, vol. 1702. Springer, 117–133.Google Scholar
Holzbaur, C. and Frühwirth, T. 2000a. A Prolog Constraint Handling Rules compiler and runtime system. Journal of Applied Artificial Intelligence 14 (4), 369–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holzbaur, C. and Frühwirth, T., Eds. 2000b. Special issue on Constraint Handling Rules. Journal of Applied Artificial Intelligence 14 (4).Google Scholar
Holzbaur, C., García de la Banda, M., Stuckey, P. J. and Duck, G. J. 2005. Optimizing compilation of Constraint Handling Rules in HAL. In Abdennadher et al. (2005), 503–531.Google Scholar
Käser, M. and Meister, M. 2006. Implementation of an F-Logic kernel in CHR. In Schrijvers and Frühwirth (2006), 33–47.Google Scholar
Kosmatov, N. 2006a. A constraint solver for sequences and its applications. In Proc. 2006 ACM Symp. on Applied Computing. ACM Press, 404–408.Google Scholar
Kosmatov, N. 2006b. Constraint solving for sequences in software validation and verification. In INAP '05: Proc. 16th Intl. Conf. Applications of Declarative Programming and Knowledge Management. LNCS, vol. 4369. Springer, 25–37.Google Scholar
Krämer, E. 2001. A generic search engine for a Java Constraint Kit. Diplomarbeit. Institute of Computer Science, LMU, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
Lam, E. S. and Sulzmann, M. 2006. Towards agent programming in CHR. In Schrijvers and Frühwirth (2006), 17–31.Google Scholar
Lam, E. S. and Sulzmann, M. 2007. A concurrent Constraint Handling Rules semantics and its implementation with software transactional memory. In DAMP '07: Proc. ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Declarative Aspects of Multicore Programming. ACM Press. System's homepage at URL: http://taichi.ddns.comp.nus.edu.sg/taichiwiki/CCHR/.Google Scholar
Lötzbeyer, H. and Pretschner, A. 2000. AutoFocus on constraint logic programming. In LPSE '00: Proc. Intl. Workshop on (Constraint) Logic Programming and Software Engineering.Google Scholar
Maher, M. J. 2002. Propagation completeness of reactive constraints. In Stuckey (2002), 148–162.Google Scholar
Meister, M. 2006. Fine-grained parallel implementation of the preflow-push algorithm in CHR. In Fink et al. (2006), 172–181.Google Scholar
Meister, M., Djelloul, K. and Frühwirth, T. 2006. Complexity of a CHR solver for existentially quantified conjunctions of equations over trees. In CSCLP '06: Proc. 11th Annual ERCIM Workshop on Constraint Solving and Constraint Programming, Azevedo, F., Barahona, P., Fages, F., and Rossi, F., Eds. LNCS, vol. 4651. Springer, 139–153.Google Scholar
Meister, M., Djelloul, K. and Robin, J. 2007. A unified semantics for constraint handling rules in transaction logic. In LPNMR '07: Proc. 9th Intl. Conf. Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Baral, C., Brewka, G. and Schlipf, J. S., Eds. LNCS, vol. 4483. Springer, 201–213.Google Scholar
Menezes, L., Vitorino, J. and Aurelio, M. 2005. A high performance CHR∨ execution engine. In Schrijvers and Frühwirth (2005b), 35–45.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. 2000. A constraint-based framework for diagrammatic reasoning. In Holzbaur and Frühwirth (2000b), 327–344.Google Scholar
Morawietz, F. 2000. Chart parsing and constraint programming. In COLING '00: Proc. 18th Intl. Conf. on Computational Linguistics, Kay, M., Ed. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Morawietz, F. and Blache, P. 2002. Parsing natural languages with CHR. Unpublished Draft [online]. URL: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htmGoogle Scholar
Penn, G. 2000. Applying Constraint Handling Rules to HPSG. In Frühwirth et al. (2000).Google Scholar
Pilozzi, P., Schrijvers, T. and De Schreye, D. 2007. Proving termination of CHR in Prolog: A transformational approach. In WST '07: 9th Intl. Workshop on Termination.Google Scholar
Pretschner, A., Slotosch, O., Aiglstorfer, E. and Kriebel, S. 2004. Model-based testing for real. J. Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT) 5, 2–3, 140–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raiser, F. 2007. Graph transformation systems in CHR. In Dahl and Niemelä (2007), 240–254.Google Scholar
Raiser, F. and Tacchella, P. 2007. On confluence of non-terminating CHR programs. In Djelloul et al. (2007), 63–76.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, C., Zúquete, A., Ferreira, P. and Guedes, P. 2000. Security policy consistency. In Frühwirth et al. (2000).Google Scholar
Ringwelski, G. and Schlenker, H. 2000a. Type inference in CHR programs for the composition of constraint systems. In WLP '00: Proc. 15th Workshop on Logic Programming, Abdennadher, S., Geske, U. and Seipel, D., Eds. 137–146.Google Scholar
Ringwelski, G. and Schlenker, H. 2000b. Using typed interfaces to compose CHR programs. In RCoRP '00(bis): Proc. 2nd Workshop on Rule-Based Constraint Reasoning and Programming, Frühwirth, T., Eds.Google Scholar
Robin, J. and Vitorino, J. 2006. ORCAS: Towards a CHR-based model-driven framework of reusable reasoning components. In Fink et al. (2006), 192–199.Google Scholar
Robin, J., Vitorino, J. and Wolf, A. 2007. Constraint programming architectures: Review and a new proposal. Journal of Universal Computer System 13, 6, 701–720.Google Scholar
Sarna-Starosta, B. and Ramakrishnan, C. 2007. Compiling Constraint Handling Rules for efficient tabled evaluation. In PADL '07: Proc. 9th Intl. Symp. Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages, Hanus, M., Ed. LNCS, vol. 4354. Springer, 170–184. System's homepage at URL: http://www.cse.msu.edu/~bss/chr_d.Google Scholar
Sarna-Starosta, B. and Schrijvers, T., 2007. Indexing Techniques for CHR Based on Program Transformation. Tech. Rep. CW 500, K.U.Leuven, Dept. Comp. Sc. Aug.Google Scholar
Schiffel, S. and Thielscher, M. 2007. Fluxplayer: A successful general game player. In AAAI '07: Proc. 22nd AAAI Conf. Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, 1191–1196.Google Scholar
Schmauss, M. 1999. An implementation of CHR in Java. Diplomarbeit. Institute of Computer Science, LMU, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
Schrijvers, T., 2004. JmmSolve: A generative Java memory model implemented in Prolog and CHR. In Demoen and Lifschitz (2004), 475–476.Google Scholar
Schrijvers, T. 2005. Analyses, Optimizations and Extensions of Constraint Handling Rules. Ph.D. Thesis, K.U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
Schrijvers, T. and Bruynooghe, M. 2006. Polymorphic algebraic data type reconstruction. In PPDP '06, Bossi, A. and Maher, M., Eds. ACM Press, 85–96.Google Scholar
Schrijvers, T. and Demoen, B. 2004a. Antimonotony-based delay avoidance for CHR. Tech. Rep. CW 385, K.U.Leuven, Dept. Comp. Sc. July.Google Scholar
Schrijvers, T. and Demoen, B. 2004b. The K.U.Leuven CHR system: Implementation and application. In Frühwirth and Meister (2004), 8–12. System's homepage at URL: http://www.cs.kuleuven.be/~toms/CHR/.Google Scholar
Schrijvers, T., Demoen, B., Duck, G. J., Stuckey, P. J. and Frühwirth, T. 2006a. Automatic implication checking for CHR constraints. In RULE '05: 6th Intl. Workshop on Rule-Based Programming, Cirstea, H. and Martí-Oliet, N., Eds. ENTCS, vol. 147(1). Elsevier, 93–111.Google Scholar
Schrijvers, T. and Frühwirth, T. 2005a. Analysing the CHR implementation of union-find. In Wolf et al. (2005), 135–146.Google Scholar
Schrijvers, T. and Frühwirth, T., Eds. 2005b. CHR '05: Proc. 2nd Workshop on Constraint Handling Rules. K.U.Leuven, Dept. Comp. Sc., Technical report CW 421.Google Scholar
Schrijvers, T. and Frühwirth, T., Eds. 2006. CHR '06: Proc. 3rd Workshop on Constraint Handling Rules. K.U.Leuven, Dept. Comp. Sc., Technical report CW 452.Google Scholar
Schrijvers, T. and Frühwirth, T. 2006. Optimal union-find in Constraint Handling Rules. Journal on Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 6, 1–2, 213–224.Google Scholar
Schrijvers, T., Stuckey, P. J. and Duck, G. J. 2005a. Abstract interpretation for constraint handling rules. In PPDP '05, Barahona, P. and Felty, A., Eds. ACM Press, 218–229.Google Scholar
Schrijvers, T. and Warren, D. S. 2004. Constraint Handling Rules and tabled execution. In Demoen and Lifschitz (2004), 120–136.Google Scholar
Schrijvers, T., Warren, D. S. and Demoen, B. 2003. CHR for XSB. In CICLOPS '03: Proc. 3rd Intl. Colloq. on Implementation of Constraint and Logic Programming Systems, Lopes, R. and Ferreira, M., Eds. University of Porto, Portugal, Dept. Comp. Sc., Technical report DCC-2003-05. 7–20.Google Scholar
Schrijvers, T., Wielemaker, J. and Demoen, B. 2005b. Poster: Constraint Handling Rules for SWI-Prolog. In Wolf et al. (2005).Google Scholar
Schrijvers, T., Zhou, N.-F. and Demoen, B. 2006b. Translating Constraint Handling Rules into Action Rules. In Schrijvers and Frühwirth (2006), 141–155.Google Scholar
Schumann, E. T. 2002. A literate programming system for logic programs with constraints. In WFLP '02: Proc. 11th Intl. Workshop on Functional and (Constraint) Logic Programming, Comini, M. and Falaschi, M., Eds. University of Udine, Research Report UDMI/18/2002/RR.Google Scholar
Scientific Software & Systems Ltd. 2008. Company Profile: Solving problems with proven solutions. Available at URL: http://www.sss.co.nz/.Google Scholar
Seitz, C., Bauer, B. and Berger, M. 2002. Planning and scheduling in multi agent systems using Constraint Handling Rules. In IC-AI '02: Proc. Intl. Conf. Artificial Intelligence, Arabnia, H. and Mun, Y., Eds. vol. 1. CSREA Press, 295–301.Google Scholar
Shigeta, Y., Akama, K., Mabuchi, H. and Koike, H. 2006. Converting Constraint Handling Rules to equivalent transformation rules. Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics 10, 3, 339–348.Google Scholar
Simões, H. and Florido, M. 2004. TypeTool: A type inference visualization tool. In WFLP '04: Proc. 13th Intl. Workshop on Functional and (Constraint) Logic Programming, Kuchen, H., Ed. RWTH Aachen, Dept. Comp. Sc., Technical report AIB-2004-05. 48–61.Google Scholar
Sneyers, J., Schrijvers, T. and Demoen, B. 2005. Guard and continuation optimization for occurrence representations of CHR. In Gabbrielli and Gupta (2005), 83–97.Google Scholar
Sneyers, J., Schrijvers, T. and Demoen, B. 2006a. Dijkstra's algorithm with Fibonacci heaps: An executable description in CHR. In Fink et al. (2006), 182–191.Google Scholar
Sneyers, J., Schrijvers, T. and Demoen, B. 2006b. Memory reuse for CHR. In Etalle and Truszczynski (2006), 72–86.Google Scholar
Sneyers, J., Schrijvers, T. and Demoen, B. 2009. The computational power and complexity of Constraint Handling Rules. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 31, 2.Google Scholar
Sneyers, J., Van Weert, P. and Schrijvers, T. 2007. Aggregates for Constraint Handling Rules. In Djelloul et al. (2007), 91–105.Google Scholar
Stuckey, P. J., Ed. 2002. ICLP '02: Proc. 18th Intl. Conf. Logic Programming. LNCS, vol. 2401. Springer.Google Scholar
Stuckey, P. J. and Sulzmann, M. 2005. A theory of overloading. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 27, 6, 1216–1269.Google Scholar
Sulzmann, M., Duck, G. J., Peyton-Jones, S. and Stuckey, P. J. 2007. Understanding functional dependencies via Constraint Handling Rules. Journal of Functional Programming 17, 1, 83–129.Google Scholar
Sulzmann, M. and Lam, E. S. 2007a. Compiling Constraint Handling Rules with lazy and concurrent search techniques. In Djelloul et al. (2007), 139–149.Google Scholar
Sulzmann, M. and Lam, E. S. 2007b. Haskell - join - rules. In IFL '07: 19th Intl. Symp. Implementation and Application of Functional Languages, Chitil, O., Ed. 195–210, Technical report No. 12-07, Computing Laboratory, University of Kent, UK.Google Scholar
Sulzmann, M., Schrijvers, T. and Stuckey, P. J. 2006. Principal type inference for GHC-style multi-parameter type classes. In APLAS '06: Proc. 4th Asian Symp. on Programming Languages and Systems, Kobayashi, N., Ed. LNCS, vol. 4279. Springer, 26–43.Google Scholar
Sulzmann, M., Wazny, J. and Stuckey, P. J. 2005. Constraint abduction and constraint handling rules. In Schrijvers and Frühwirth (2005b), 63–78.Google Scholar
Tacchella, P., Gabbrielli, M. and Meo, M. C. 2007. Unfolding in CHR. In PPDP '07, Leuschel, M. and Podelski, A., Eds. ACM Press, 179–186.Google Scholar
Thielscher, M. 2002. Reasoning about actions with CHRs and finite domain constraints. In Stuckey (2002), 70–84.Google Scholar
Thielscher, M. 2005. FLUX: A logic programming method for reasoning agents. In Abdennadher et al. (2005), 533–565.Google Scholar
Ueda, K. et al. 2006. LMNtal as a unifying declarative language. In Schrijvers and Frühwirth (2006), 1–15. Invited talk.Google Scholar
Van Weert, P. 2008. Compiling Constraint Handling Rules to Java: A reconstruction. Tech. Rep. CW 521, K.U.Leuven, Dept. Comp. Sc. Aug.Google Scholar
Van Weert, P., Schrijvers, T. and Demoen, B. 2005. K.U.Leuven JCHR: A user-friendly, flexible and efficient CHR system for Java. In Schrijvers and Frühwirth (2005b), 47–62. System's homepage at URL: http://www.cs.kuleuven.be/~petervw/JCHR/.Google Scholar
Van Weert, P., Sneyers, J. and Demoen, B. 2008a. Aggregates for CHR through program transformation. In LOPSTR '07, Revised Selected Papers, King, A., Ed. LNCS, vol. 4915.Google Scholar
Van Weert, P., Sneyers, J., Schrijvers, T. and Demoen, B. 2006. Extending CHR with negation as absence. In Schrijvers and Frühwirth (2006), 125–140.Google Scholar
Van Weert, P., Wuille, P., Schrijvers, T. and Demoen, B. 2008b. CHR for imperative host languages. In Special Issue on Constraint Handling Rules. LNAI, vol. 5388. Springer.Google Scholar
Voets, D., Pilozzi, P. and De Schreye, D. 2007. A new approach to termination analysis of Constraint Handling Rules. In Djelloul et al. (2007), 77–89.Google Scholar
Voll, K. 2006. A methodology of error detection: Improving speech recognition in radiology. Ph.D. thesis, Simon Fraser University, Canada.Google Scholar
Wazny, J. 2006. Type inference and type error diagnosis for Hindley/Milner with extensions. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Wolf, A. 1999. Adaptive Constraintverarbeitung mit Constraint-Handling-Rules – ein allgemeiner Ansatz zur Lösung dynamischer Constraint-probleme. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University Berlin, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Wolf, A. 2000a. Projection in adaptive constraint handling. In New Trends in Constraints, Joint ERCIM/Compulog Net Workshop, October 1999, Selected papers, Apt, K., Kakas, A., Monfroy, E. and Rossi, F., Eds. LNCS, vol. 1865. Springer, 318–338.Google Scholar
Wolf, A. 2000b. Toward a rule-based solution of dynamic constraint hierarchies over finite domains. In Frühwirth et al. (2000).Google Scholar
Wolf, A. 2001a. Adaptive constraint handling with CHR in Java. In CP '01, Walsh, T., Ed. LNCS, vol. 2239. Springer, 256–270.Google Scholar
Wolf, A. 2001b. Attributed variables for dynamic constraint solving. In Proc. 14th Intl. Conf. Applications of Prolog. Prolog Association of Japan, 211–219.Google Scholar
Wolf, A. 2005. Intelligent search strategies based on adaptive Constraint Handling Rules. In Abdennadher et al. (2005), 567–594.Google Scholar
Wolf, A., Frühwirth, T. and Meister, M., Eds. 2005. W(C)LP '05: Proc. 19th Workshop on (Constraint) Logic Programming. Ulmer Informatik-Berichte, vol. 2005–01. Universität Ulm, Germany.Google Scholar
Wolf, A., Gruenhagen, T. and Geske, U. 2000. On incremental adaptation of CHR derivations. In Holzbaur and Frühwirth (2000b), 389–416.Google Scholar
Wolf, A., Robin, J. and Vitorino, J. 2007. Adaptive CHR meets CHR∨: An extended refined operational semantics for CHR∨ based on justifications. In Djelloul et al. (2007), 1–15.Google Scholar
Wuille, P., Schrijvers, T. and Demoen, B. 2007. CCHR: The fastest CHR implementation, in C. In Djelloul et al. (2007), 123–137. System's homepage at URL: http://www.cs.kuleuven.be/~pieterw/CCHR/.Google Scholar
You have Access- 27
- Cited by