Rules Programs Negation

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Datalog: Logic Instead of Algebra. 2 Datalog: Logic instead of Algebra Each relational-algebra operator can be mimicked by one or several Database Logic.
Advertisements

Interprocedural Analysis. Currently, we only perform data-flow analysis on procedures one at a time. Such analyses are called intraprocedural analyses.
CSE 636 Data Integration Conjunctive Queries Containment Mappings / Canonical Databases Slides by Jeffrey D. Ullman.
Lecture 11: Datalog Tuesday, February 6, Outline Datalog syntax Examples Semantics: –Minimal model –Least fixpoint –They are equivalent Naive evaluation.
Answer Set Programming Overview Dr. Rogelio Dávila Pérez Profesor-Investigador División de Posgrado Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara
1 Database Management Systems 3ed, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke Deductive Databases Chapter 25.
CMPT 354, Simon Fraser University, Fall 2008, Martin Ester 52 Database Systems I Relational Algebra.
Constraint Logic Programming Ryan Kinworthy. Overview Introduction Logic Programming LP as a constraint programming language Constraint Logic Programming.
Winter 2002Arthur Keller – CS 18014–1 Schedule Today: Feb. 26 (T) u Datalog. u Read Sections Assignment 6 due. Feb. 28 (TH) u Datalog and SQL.
CSE 636 Data Integration Datalog Rules / Programs / Negation Slides by Jeffrey D. Ullman.
1 Datalog Rules Programs Negation. 2 Review of Logical If-Then Rules h(X,…) :- a(Y,…) & b(Z,…) & … head body subgoals “The head is true if all the subgoals.
1 Semantics of Datalog With Negation Local Stratification Stable Models Well-Founded Models.
Embedded SQL Direct SQL is rarely used: usually, SQL is embedded in some application code. We need some method to reference SQL statements. But: there.
1 Datalog Logical Rules Recursion. 2 Logic As a Query Language uIf-then logical rules have been used in many systems. wMost important today: EII (Enterprise.
Credit: Slides are an adaptation of slides from Jeffrey D. Ullman 1.
Deductive Databases Chapter 25
CS 286, UC Berkeley, Spring 2007, R. Ramakrishnan 1 Introduction to Logic and Databases R. Ramakrishnan Database Management Systems, Gehrke- Ramakrishnan,
Defining Polynomials p 1 (n) is the bound on the length of an input pair p 2 (n) is the bound on the running time of f p 3 (n) is a bound on the number.
Logical Query Languages Motivation: 1.Logical rules extend more naturally to recursive queries than does relational algebra. u Used in SQL recursion. 2.Logical.
DEDUCTIVE DATABASE.
Discrete Mathematics CS 2610 March 26, 2009 Skip: structural induction generalized induction Skip section 4.5.
Databases 1 8th lecture. Topics of the lecture Multivalued Dependencies Fourth Normal Form Datalog 2.
DECIDABILITY OF PRESBURGER ARITHMETIC USING FINITE AUTOMATA Presented by : Shubha Jain Reference : Paper by Alexandre Boudet and Hubert Comon.
The Relational Model: Relational Calculus
Logical Query Languages Motivation: 1.Logical rules extend more naturally to recursive queries than does relational algebra. u Used in SQL recursion. 2.Logical.
Datalog Inspired by the impedance mismatch in relational databases. Main expressive advantage: recursive queries. More convenient for analysis: papers.
CSE 636 Data Integration Conjunctive Queries Containment Mappings / Canonical Databases Slides by Jeffrey D. Ullman Fall 2006.
Induction Proof. Well-ordering A set S is well ordered if every subset has a least element. [0, 1] is not well ordered since (0,1] has no least element.
CS Introduction to AI Tutorial 8 Resolution Tutorial 8 Resolution.
Datalog –Another query language –cleaner – closer to a “logic” notation, prolog – more convenient for analysis – can express queries that are not expressible.
Chapter 5 Notes. P. 189: Sets, Bags, and Lists To understand the distinction between sets, bags, and lists, remember that a set has unordered elements,
Lecture 4: Predicates and Quantifiers; Sets.
Lu Chaojun, SJTU 1 Extended Relational Algebra. Bag Semantics A relation (in SQL, at least) is really a bag (or multiset). –It may contain the same tuple.
1 Reasoning with Infinite stable models Piero A. Bonatti presented by Axel Polleres (IJCAI 2001,
ICS 321 Fall 2011 Algebraic and Logical Query Languages (ii) Asst. Prof. Lipyeow Lim Information & Computer Science Department University of Hawaii at.
Extensions of Datalog Wednesday, February 13, 2001.
1 Datalog with negation Adapted from slides by Jeff Ullman.
Logical Agents. Outline Knowledge-based agents Logic in general - models and entailment Propositional (Boolean) logic Equivalence, validity, satisfiability.
1 Finite Model Theory Lecture 9 Logics and Complexity Classes (cont’d)
CS589 Principles of DB Systems Fall 2008 Lecture 4c: Query Language Equivalence Lois Delcambre
More About Turing Machines
Methods of Proof.
CS589 Principles of DB Systems Spring 2014 Unit 2: Recursive Query Processing Lecture 2-1 – Naïve algorithm for recursive queries Lois Delcambre (slides.
Applied Discrete Mathematics Week 15: Trees
Data Structures and Design in Java © Rick Mercer
Datalog Rules / Programs / Negation Slides by Jeffrey D. Ullman
Context-Free Grammars: an overview
Relational Model By Dr.S.Sridhar, Ph.D.(JNUD), RACI(Paris, NICE), RMR(USA), RZFM(Germany)
Chapter 2 - Introduction to C Programming
Chapter 2 - Introduction to C Programming
Containment Mappings Canonical Databases Sariaya’s Algorithm
Semantics of Datalog With Negation
Chapter 2 - Introduction to C Programming
Alternating tree Automata and Parity games
Chapter 2 - Introduction to C Programming
Cse 344 January 29th – Datalog.
CHAPTER 2 Context-Free Languages
T. Jumana Abu Shmais – AOU - Riyadh
Lectures on Graph Algorithms: searching, testing and sorting
Introduction to Finite Automata
Motivation for Datalog
Chapter 2 - Introduction to C Programming
Graphs, Linear Equations, and Functions
Logic Based Query Languages
Brief Introduction to Computational Logic
Datalog Inspired by the impedance mismatch in relational databases.
This Lecture Substitution model
CS589 Principles of DB Systems Fall 2008 Lecture 4e: Logic (Model-theoretic view of a DB) Lois Delcambre
COMPILER CONSTRUCTION
Turing Machines Everything is an Integer
Presentation transcript:

Rules Programs Negation Datalog Rules Programs Negation

Review of Logical If-Then Rules body head subgoals h(X,…) :- a(Y,…) & b(Z,…) & … “The head is true if all the subgoals are true.”

Terminology Head and subgoals are atoms. An atom consists of a predicate (lower case) applied to zero or more arguments (upper case letters or constants).

Semantics Predicates represent relations. An atom is true for given values of its variables iff the arguments form a tuple of the relation. Whenever an assignment of values to all variables makes all subgoals true, the rule asserts that the resulting head is also true.

Example We shall develop rules that describe what is necessary to “make” a file. The predicates/relations: source(F) = F is a “source” file. includes(F,G) = F #includes G. create(F,P,G) = F is created by applying process P to file G.

Example --- Continued Rules to define “view” req(X,Y) = file Y is required to create file X : req(F,F) :- source(F) req(F,G) :- includes(F,G) req(F,G) :- create(F,P,G) req(F,G) :- req(F,H) & req(H,G) G is required for F if there is some process P that creates F from G. G is required for F if there is some H such that H is required for F and G is required for H.

Why Not Just Use SQL? Recursion is much easier to express in Datalog. Viz. last rule for req. Rules express things that go on in both FROM and WHERE clauses, and let us state some general principles (e.g., containment of rules) that are almost impossible to state correctly in SQL.

IDB/EDB A predicate representing a stored relation is called EDB (extensional database). A predicate representing a “view,” i.e., a defined relation that does not exist in the database is called IDB (intesional database). Head is always IDB; subgoals may be IDB or EDB.

Datalog Programs A collection of rules is a (Datalog) program. Each program has a distinguished IDB predicate that represents the result of the program. E.g., req in our example.

Extensions Negated subgoals. Constants as arguments. Arithmetic subgoals.

Negated Subgoals NOT in front of a subgoal means that an assignment of values to variables must make it false in order for the body to be true. Example: cycle(F) :- req(F,F) & NOT source(F)

Constants as Arguments We use numbers, lower-case letters, or quoted strings to indicate a constant. Example: req(“foo.c”, “stdio.h”) :- Note that empty body is OK. Mixed constants and variables also OK.

Arithmetic Subgoals Comparisons like < may be thought of as infinite, binary relations. Here, the set of all tuples (x,y) such that x<y. Use infix notation for these predicates. Example: composite(A) :- divides(B,A) & B > 1 & B != A

Evaluating Datalog Programs Nonrecursive programs. Naïve evaluation of recursive programs without IDB negation. Seminaïve evaluation of recursive programs without IDB negation. Eliminates some redundant computation.

Safety When we apply a rule to finite relations, we need to get a finite result. Simple guarantee: safety = all variables appear in some nonnegated, relational (not arithmetic) subgoal of the body. Start with the join of the nonnegated, relational subgoals and select/delete from there.

Examples: Nonsafety p(X) :- q(Y) bachelor(X) :- NOT married(X,Y) X is the problem p(X) :- q(Y) bachelor(X) :- NOT married(X,Y) bachelor(X) :- person(X) & NOT married(X,Y) Both X and Y are problems Y is still a problem

Nonrecursive Evaluation If (and only if!) a Datalog program is not recursive, then we can order the IDB predicates so that in any rule for p (i.e., p is the head predicate), the only IDB predicates in the body precede p.

Why? Consider the dependency graph with: Nodes = IDB predicates. Arc p -> q iff there is a rule for p with q in the body. Cycle involving node p means p is recursive. No cycles: use topological order to evaluate predicates.

Applying Rules To evaluate an IDB predicate p : Apply each rule for p to the current relations corresponding to its subgoals. “Apply” = If an assignment of values to variables makes the body true, insert the tuple that the head becomes into the relation for p (no duplicates). Take the union of the result for each p-rule.

Example p(X,Y) :- q(X,Z) & r(Z,Y) & Y<10 Q = {(1,2), (3,4)}; R = {(2,5), (4,9), (4,10), (6,7)} Assignments making the body true: (X,Y,Z) = (1,5,2), (3,9,4) So P = {(1,5), (3,9)}.

Algorithm for Nonrecursive FOR (each predicate p in topological order) DO apply the rules for p to previously computed relations to compute relation P for p;

Naïve Evaluation for Recursive make all IDB relations empty; WHILE (changes to IDB) DO FOR (each IDB predicate p) DO evaluate p using current values of all relations;

Important Points As long as there is no negation of IDB subgoals, then each IDB relation “grows,” i.e., on each round it contains at least what it used to contain. Since relations are finite, the loop must eventually terminate. Result is the least fixedpoint (minimal model ) of rules.

Seminaïve Evaluation Key idea: to get a new tuple for relation P on one round, the evaluation must use some tuple for some relation of the body that was obtained on the previous round. Maintain P = new tuples added to P on previous round. “Differentiate” rule bodies to be union of bodies with one IDB subgoal made “.”

Example (“make files”) r(F,F) :- s(F) r(F,G) :- i(F,G)) r(F,G) :- c(F,P,G) r(F,G) :- r(F,H) & r(H,F) Assume EDB predicates s, i, c have relations S, I, C.

Example --- Continued Initialize: R = R = #1=#2(S  S)  I  1,3(C) Repeat until R = : R = 1,3(R ⋈ R  R ⋈ R) R = R - R R = R  R

Function Symbols in Rules Extends Datalog by allowing arguments built from constants, variables, and function names, recursively applied. Function names look like predicate names, but are allowed only within the arguments of atoms. Predicates return true/false; functions return arbitrary values.

Example Instead of a string argument like “101 Maple” we could use a term like addr(street(“Maple”), number(101)) Compare with the XML term <ADDR><STREET>Maple</STREET> <NUMBER>101</NUMBER> </ADDR>

Another Example Predicates: Functions: isTree(X) = X is a binary tree. label(L) = L is a node label. Functions: node(A,L,R) = a tree with root labeled A, left subtree L, and right subtree R. null = 0-ary function (constant) representing the empty tree.

Example --- Continued The rules: isTree(null) :- isTree(node(L,T1,T2)) :- label(L) & isTree(T1) & isTree(T2)

Example --- Concluded Assume label(a) and label(b) are true. I.e., a and b are in the relation for label. Infer isTree(node(a,null,null)). Infer isTree(node(b,null,node(a,null,null))). b a

Evaluation of Rules With Function Symbols Naïve, seminaïve still work when there are no negated IDB subgoals. They both lead to the unique least fixedpoint (minimal model). But… this fixedpoint may not be reached in any finite number of rounds. The isTree rules are an example.

Problems With IDB Negation When rules have negated IDB subgoals, there can be several minimal models. Recall: model = set of IDB facts, plus the given EDB facts, that make the rules true for every assignment of values to variables. Rule is true unless body is true and head is false.

Example: EDB red(X,Y)= the Red bus line runs from X to Y. green(X,Y)= the Green bus line runs from X to Y.

Example: IDB greenPath(X,Y)= you can get from X to Y using only Green buses. monopoly(X,Y)= Red has a bus from X to Y, but you can’t get there on Green, even changing buses.

Example: Rules greenPath(X,Y) :- green(X,Y) greenPath(X,Y) :- greenPath(X,Z) & greenPath(Z,Y) monopoly(X,Y) :- red(X,Y) & NOT greenPath(X,Y)

EDB Data red(1,2), red(2,3), green(1,2) 1 2 3

Two Minimal Models EDB + greenPath(1,2) + monopoly(2,3) EDB + greenPath(1,2) + greenPath(2,3) + greenPath(1,3) greenPath(X,Y) :- green(X,Y) greenPath(X,Y) :- greenPath(X,Z) & greenPath(Z,Y) monopoly(X,Y) :- red(X,Y) & NOT greenPath(X,Y) 1 2 3

Stratified Models Dependency graph describes how IDB predicates depend negatively on each other. Stratified Datalog = no recursion involving negation. Stratified model is a particular model that “makes sense” for stratified Datalog programs.

Dependency Graph Nodes = IDB predicates. Arc p -> q iff there is a rule for p that has a subgoal with predicate q. Arc p -> q labeled – iff there is a subgoal with predicate q that is negated.

Monopoly Example monopoly greenPath --

Another Example: “Win” win(X) :- move(X,Y) & NOT win(Y) Represents games like Nim where you win by forcing your opponent to a position where they have no move.

Dependency Graph for “Win” --

Strata The stratum of an IDB predicate is the largest number of –’s on a path from that predicate, in the dependency graph. Examples: Stratum 1 monopoly greenPath -- win -- Infinite stratum Stratum 0

Stratified Programs If all IDB predicates have finite strata, then the Datalog program is stratified. If any IDB predicate has the infinite stratum, then the program is unstratified, and no stratified model exists.

Stratified Model Evaluate strata 0, 1,… in order. If the program is stratified, then any negated IDB subgoal has already had its relation evaluated. Safety assures that we can “subtract it from something.” Treat it as EDB. Result is the stratified model.

Examples For “Monopoly,” greenPath is in stratum 0: compute it (the transitive closure of green). Then, monopoly is in stratum 1: compute it by taking the difference of red and greenPath. Result is first model proposed. “Win” is not stratified, thus no stratified model.