1: %\documentstyle[12pt]{article}

2: 

3: %\documentstyle[graphics]{llncs}

4: 

5: 

6: \documentclass[twoside,12pt]{article} 

7: 

8: 

9: %\documentclass{scrartcl}    % Specifies the document style.

10: \usepackage{times}

11: \usepackage{amsmath}

12: \usepackage{alltt}

13: \usepackage{epsfig}

14: 

15: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}

16: 

17: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{0.86}

18: 

19: \textwidth 480pt

20: \textheight 680pt

21: 

22: \overfullrule 0pt

23: \pagestyle{headings}

24: \voffset -10 truemm

25: \hoffset -12 truemm

26: \addtolength{\leftmargin}{-5cm}

27: 

28: 

29: \def\crrr{}

30: 

31: \def\bbbr{{\rm \mathbf I\!R}}

32: 

33: \newlength{\eztab}

34: \setlength{\eztab}{23pt} 

35: \def\ta{\displaystyle\rm}

36: \def\tb{\displaystyle\rm\hspace*{\eztab}}

37: \def\tc{\displaystyle\rm\hspace*{2\eztab}}

38: \def\td{\displaystyle\rm\hspace*{3\eztab}}

39: \def\te{\displaystyle\rm\hspace*{4\eztab}}

40: \def\tf{\displaystyle\rm\hspace*{5\eztab}}

41: \def\ttb{\rm\mspace{-80mu}}

42: 

43: \newcommand{\avec}{{\boldsymbol\alpha}}

44: \newcommand{\mvec}{{\boldsymbol\mu}}

45: \newcommand{\boldh}{{\cal H}}

46: \newcommand{\boldf}{{\cal F}}

47: \newcommand{\data}[6]

48: {

49: { ${ \ttb

50: \begin{smallmatrix}

51: \rule{0pt}{10pt} {\ta #1} \\

52: \rule{0pt}{7pt} {\tb #2} \\ 

53: \rule{0pt}{7pt} {\tc #3} \\

54: \rule{0pt}{7pt} {\td #4} \\ 

55: \rule{0pt}{7pt} {\te #5} \\

56: \rule{0pt}{7pt} {\tf #6} \\

57: \rule{0pt}{1pt}

58: \end{smallmatrix} }$}

59: }

60: 

61: \newcommand{\head}

62: {

63: {\tiny ${

64: \mspace{-100mu}

65: \begin{smallmatrix}

66: \rule{0pt}{8pt} {\ta TiMBL} \\ \rule{0pt}{6pt} {\tb C4.5} \\ 

67: \rule{0pt}{6pt} {\tc OC1} \\ \rule{0pt}{6pt} {\td ANN} \\ 

68: \rule{0pt}{6pt} {\te GMM} \\

69: \rule{0pt}{6pt} {\tf SVM}

70: \\ { }

71: \end{smallmatrix} }$}

72: }

73: 

74: \newcommand{\headd}[2]

75: {

76: $\begin{array}{c}

77: {\mathbf{#1}}\\

78: {#2}

79: \end{array}$

80: }

81: 

82: 

83: \begin{document}

84: 

85: 

86: 

87: \pagestyle{myheadings} 

88: \markboth{AADEBUG 2000}{Slicing of Constraint Logic Programs} 

89: 

90: \title{Slicing of Constraint Logic Programs }

91: 

92: 

93: 

94: \footnote{In M. Ducass\'e (ed), proceedings of the Fourth International

95:  Workshop on Automated Debugging (AADEBUG 2000), August 2000, Munich.

96:   COmputer Research Repository (http://www.acm.org/corr/), 

97:   cs.SE/0012014; whole proceedings: cs.SE/0010035.} 

98: 

99: 

100: \author{Gy\"ongyi Szil\'agyi$^1$, Tibor Gyim\'othy$^1$ and Jan 

101:  Ma{\l}uszy{\'n}ski $^2$  \\

102: $^1$ Research Group on Artificial Intelligence  Hungarian Academy of Sciences \\

103:   $^2$ Dept.  of Computer and Information Sci.,

104:   Link{\"o}ping University, Sweden\\

105: E-mail:\{szilagyi,gyimi\}@inf.u-szeged.hu, janma@ida.liu.se}

106: %\thanks{The work of the first and second authors was supported by the grant OTKA T52721}

107: 

108: 

109: 

110: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

111: 

112: \date{}

113: \maketitle

114: 

115: 

116: \begin{abstract}  

117: {\bf Abstract. } {\em 

118: Slicing is a program analysis technique originally developed

119: for  imperative languages. It facilitates   understanding of data flow

120: and debugging.

121: 

122: This paper discusses  slicing of Constraint Logic Programs.

123: Constraint Logic Programming (CLP) is an emerging software technology

124: with a growing number of applications.

125: Data flow in constraint  programs is not explicit, and for this reason 

126: the concepts of slice and the slicing

127: techniques of imperative languages are not directly applicable.

128: 

129: 

130: This paper formulates  declarative notions  of  slice suitable

131: for CLP. They provide  a basis for defining 

132: slicing techniques (both dynamic and static) based on variable

133: sharing. The techniques are further extended by using

134: groundness information. 

135: 

136: A prototype dynamic slicer of CLP programs implementing

137: the presented ideas  is briefly described  together with the results of

138: some slicing experiments. }

139: 

140: \end{abstract}

141: %\trabstractpage 

142: 

143: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

144: 

145: 

146: 

147: \input epsf

148: 

149: 

150: %\newtheorem{de}[theorem]{Definition}

151: 

152: %\newenvironment{definition}{\begin{de} \rm \normalsize}{\hfill 

153: 

154: %$\Box$\par\end{de}}

155: 

156: 

157: 

158: \newtheorem{theo}{Theorem}%[section]

159: 

160: %\newtheorem{lemma}[theo]{Lemma}%[section]

161: 

162: \newtheorem{prop}[theo]{Proposition}%[section]

163: 

164: \newtheorem{con}[theo]{Consequence}%[section]

165: 

166: \newtheorem{defi}{Definition}%[section]

167: 

168: \newtheorem{ex}{Example}%[section]

169: 

170: \newcommand{\bd}{\begin{defi}}

171: 

172: \newcommand{\ed}{\end{defi}}

173: 

174: \newcommand{\bt}{\begin{theo}}

175: 

176: \newcommand{\et}{\end{theo}}

177: 

178: \newcommand{\bl}{\begin{lemma}}

179: 

180: \newcommand{\el}{\end{lemma}}

181: 

182: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{ex}}

183: 

184: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{ex}}

185: 

186: 

187: 

188: 

189: 

190: 

191: 

192: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

193: 

194: 

195: 

196: 

197: \section{Introduction}

198: 

199: 

200: 

201: %\footnote{} Slicing is a program analysis technique originally developed

202: %for  imperative languages. It facilitates the understanding of data flow

203: %and debugging (see e.g. \cite{HR92, GBF, KAR97, KAM93, Reps94, Tip}).

204: 

205: This paper discusses slicing of Constraint Logic Programs.

206: Constraint Logic Programming (CLP) (see e.g. \cite{Mar98})

207:  is an emerging software technology

208: with growing number of applications.

209: Data flow in constraint  programs is not explicit, and for this reason 

210: the concept of a  slice and the slicing

211: techniques of imperative languages are not directly applicable.

212: Also, implicit data flow  makes the 

213: understanding of program behaviour rather difficult. Thus  

214: program analysis tools explaining data flow to the user

215:  could be of great practical importance. This paper presents

216:  a prototype tool based on the slice concept applied to  CLP.

217: 

218: 

219: 

220: %The  aim of slicing is to find fragments of the  program 

221: %which influence

222: %the value of a selected variable at a given program

223: %point. 

224: 

225: Intuitively a program {\em slice}

226: with respect to a specific variable at some program point 

227: contains all those parts of the program that may affect the value of

228: the variable ({\em backward slice}) or may be affected by the value 

229: of the variable ({\em forward slice}). Slicing algorithms

230: can be classified according to whether they only use statically

231: available information ({\em static slicing}), or compute those

232: statements which influence the value of a variable occurrence for

233: a specific program input ({\em dynamic slice}).

234:  The slice provides a focus for analysis of the

235: origin  of the  computed values of the variable in question.

236: In the context of CLP the intuition remains the same, but

237: the concept of slice requires precise definition since the nature

238: of CLP computations is different from the nature of imperative 

239: computing.

240: 

241: 

242: 

243: Slicing techniques for logic programs have been discussed in

244: \cite{Gyi, Duc, Zhao3}.  CLP extends logic programming with 

245: constraints. This is a substantial extension and the slicing

246: of CLP program has, to our knowledge, not yet been addressed 

247: by other authors.

248: Novel   contributions presented in  this paper are:

249: \begin{itemize}

250: \item  {\em A precise formulation of the slicing problem for CLP programs.} 

251: We first define  a  concept of slice  for a set of constraints,

252: which is then used to define slices of {\em derivation trees}, representing 

253:  states of CLP computations.

254: Then we define  slices  of a program 

255: in terms of the  slices of its  derivation trees.

256: \item {\em Slicing techniques for CLP.} 

257: We present  slicing techniques that make it possible to construct

258: slices according to the definitions. The techniques are 

259: based on a simple analysis of variable sharing  and   groundness. 

260: \item {\em A prototype dynamic slicer.} 

261: A tool implementing the proposed techniques and some  experiments with its use are briefly described.

262: \end{itemize}

263: 

264: The  precisely defined concepts of slice gives a solid foundation

265: for development of slicing techniques. The prototype tool, including

266: some visualisation facilities, helps the user in better understanding of

267:  the program and in (manual) search for errors. 

268: Integration of this

269: tool with more advanced debuggers is a topic of future work.

270:  

271: 

272: The paper is organized as follows.

273: Section 2 outlines some basic concepts which are then used in

274: Section 3 to formulate the problem of slicing. 

275: Section 4 presents and justifies a declarative formalization of CLP slicing,  

276: based on a notion of dependency relation. 

277: Section 5 discusses a dynamic backward slicing technique, and the use 

278: of directionality information

279: for reducing the size of slices. 

280: Our prototype tool is described in Section 6, together with

281: results of some experiments.

282: Section 7 then  discusses relations to other work. Finally 

283: in Section 8 we present our conclusions and suggestions for future work. 

284: 

285: 

286: 

287: 

288: 

289: 

290: 

291: 

292: 

293: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

294: 

295: 

296: 

297: 

298: 

299:  

300: 

301: 

302: \section{Constraint Logic Programs}

303: 

304: %Constraint logic programming is an extension of 

305: 

306: 

307: 

308: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

309: 

310: 

311: %\subsection{Constraint Logic Programs and Derivation Trees}

312: 

313: 

314: The  cornerstone of

315: {\bf Constraint Logic Programming (CLP)} \cite{JaM, Mar98}

316: is the notion of constraint. Constraints are formulae  constructed

317: with some {\bf constraint predicates} with a predefined interpretation.

318: A typical example of a 

319: constraint is a linear arithmetic  equation

320: or inequality

321: with rational coefficients where the

322: constraint predicate used is equality  interpreted over 

323: rational numbers, e.g. $X-Y=1$. The variables of a constraint range

324: over the domain of interpretation.

325: A {\bf valuation} of a set  $S$ of variables is a mapping $\theta$

326: from $S$ to the interpretation domain.

327: A set of constraints  $C$ {\bf is satisfiable } if 

328: there exists a valuation $\theta$ for the set of variables occurring 

329: in $C$, such that $\theta (C)$ holds in the constraint domain.   \\

330: 

331: A {\bf constraint logic program} is a set of {\bf clauses}

332: of the form $h :- b_1,...,b_n$, $n\geq 0$ , where $h,b_1,...,b_n$

333: are  {\bf atomic formulae}. The predicates used to construct 

334: $b_1,...,b_n$  are either constraint predicates or other predicates 

335: (sometimes called {\bf defined  predicates}). The predicate of $h$ 

336: is a defined predicate. A {\bf goal} is a clause without $h$.

337: This syntax   extends 

338:  logic programs  with the possibility of including constraints

339: into the clauses.

340: \be

341: In the  following constraint  program 

342: the equality constraint

343: and symbols of arithmetic operations are 

344: interpreted over the domain of rational numbers.

345: This simple example is chosen   to simplify 

346: the forthcoming illustration

347: of slicing concepts and techniques. The constraints are distinguished

348: by the curly brackets $\{\}$.

349: 

350: \begin{verbatim}

351: p(X,Y,Z):- {X-Y=1}, q(X,Y), r(Z).

352: q(U,V):- {U+V=3}.

353: r(42).

354: \end{verbatim}

355: \ee

356: 

357: Slicing refers to computations. Abstractly, a computation

358: can be seen as construction of a  tree, from 

359: renamed instances of clauses. We explain briefly

360: the  idea discussed formally in   \cite{DM93}. 

361: 

362: Intuitively, a clause $c$ can be seen as a tree with root $h$ {\bf  head}

363: and leaves $b_1,...,b_n$ {\bf body atoms}. If the predicate of  

364: $b_i$  appears in the head of a clause $c'$ then a renamed copy $c''$ of

365: $c'$  can be composed  with $c$ by attaching the head of $c''$ 

366: to $b_i$. This implicitly adds equality constraints for the corresponding

367: arguments of the atoms. 

368:  This process can be repeated for the leaves of 

369: the resulting tree. More formally this is captured by the following

370: notion. A {\bf skeleton}  for a program $P$ is a labeled ordered tree with

371: the root labeled by a goal clause and with the 

372: nodes labeled by (renamed) clauses of the program; some leaves may instead  be

373: labeled "?" in which case they are called {\bf incomplete

374: nodes}.

375:  Each non-leaf

376: node has as many children as the non-constraint atoms of its body.

377: The head predicate of the $i$-th child of a node is the same as the

378: predicate of the $i$-th non-constraint body atom of the clause labeling

379: the node.

380: 

381: 

382: 

383: For a given skeleton $S$ the set $C(S)$ of constraints, 

384: which will be called {\bf the set of constraints of $S$}, consists of :

385: \begin{itemize}

386: \item the constraints of all clauses labeling the nodes of $S$

387: \item all equations $\vec{x} = \vec{y}$ where $\vec{x}$ are the 

388: arguments of the $i$-th body atom of the

389: clause labeling a node $n$ of $S$, and $\vec{y}$ are the arguments of 

390: the head atom of the clause labeling the $i$-th child of $n$. (No equation is created if the

391: $i$-th child of $n$ is an incomplete node).

392: \end{itemize}

393: A {\bf derivation  tree} for a program $P$

394: is a  skeleton for $P$ whose set of 

395: constraints is satisfiable. 

396: If the skeleton is complete (i.e. it has no incomplete node) 

397: the derivation tree is called a {\bf proof tree}. 

398: Figure \ref{1kep}  shows a complete  skeleton  tree for the program in

399:  Example 1.

400: 

401: 

402: \begin{figure}[h]

403: \begin{center}

404: \epsfbox{kep5.eps}

405: \caption{A skeleton for the CLP program of Example 1.}

406: \label{1kep}

407: \end{center}

408: \end{figure}

409: 

410: The  set of constraints of this skeleton is: 

411: $C(S)= \{X-Y=1, X=U, Y=V, U+V=3, Z=42\}$

412: and it is satisfiable. Thus the skeleton is a proof tree.

413: 

414: 

415: 

416: For the presentation of the slicing techniques we need to refer  

417: to {\bf  program positions} 

418:  and to {\bf derivation tree positions}. A slice is 

419: defined  with respect to some particular occurrence of a variable

420: (in a program or derivation tree), and positions are used to identify

421: these ocurrences. Positions also identify arguments of the atomic formulae

422: and their subterms. 

423:  

424:     To define the notion of position we assume that some standard

425: way of enumeration of the nodes of any given tree $T$ is adopted.

426: The indices of the nodes of $T$ are called  {\bf positions} of $T$

427: and the set of all positions is denoted $Pos(T)$. Each position

428: determines a unique subtree of $T$. On the other hand,

429:  $T$ may have several identical subtrees $T_0$ at different

430:  positions.

431: 

432: This notation extends also for atomic formulae and terms,

433: where the positions determine unique subterms.

434: A position of a term such that the corresponding subterm 

435: is a variable will be called a {\em variable position}.

436: We extend the adopted way of enumeration to clauses and 

437: programs; a {\em program position} is an index in this enumeration

438: that identifies an atomic formula or a term in a clause of the program.

439: 

440: 

441: A single clause may be treated  as a one-clause program.

442: As discussed above, a derivation tree has its nodes labeled 

443: by renamed variants of program clauses. By a {\em derivation

444: tree position} of a derivation tree $T$  

445: we mean a pair $(i_1,i_2)$, where $i_1$ is a position of the skeleton of $T$ 

446: and $i_2$ is a position of the clause labeling node $i_1$ in $T$.

447: The set of all tree positions of a derivation tree $T$

448: will be denoted by $Pos(T)$. 

449: 

450: Recall  that each label of a derivation tree $T$  is a variant of

451: a program clause, or of a goal. Therefore the 

452: positions of $T$ can be mapped in a natural way into the corresponding

453: program positions. 

454: 

455: 

456: Similary,  each  occurrence of a variable $X$ 

457:  in   $C(T)$ (the constraint set of $T$) originates from

458: a variable position of $X$ in $T$. 

459: Thus variable positions of $T$ can be linked to the

460: related constraints of $C(T)$.

461: 

462: Let $\cal P$ be a set of positions of $T$, and  

463: $\Psi_T({\cal P})$  the set of all variables 

464: that appear in the terms on positions in  $\cal P$. In this way $\cal P$ 

465: identifies 

466: the  subset $C_{\cal P}$ of  $C(T)$ consisting of all 

467: constraints including variables in $\Psi_T(\cal P)$. 

468: \be

469:   Consider the derivation tree of Figure 1.\\  

470: Let $\cal(P)=\{$ derivation tree positions of the atom $q(X,Y)\} \subseteq Pos(T).$ \\

471: Then $\Psi_T {\cal(P)} = \{X,Y\}$ and $C_{\cal P}=\{X-Y=1, X=U, Y=V\}. $

472: %\subseteq C(T).$

473: \ee

474: 

475: 

476: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

477: 

478: 

479: \section{The Slicing Problem}

480: 

481: Given a variable $X$ in a CLP program we would like to find a fragment 

482: of the program that may affect the value of $X$. 

483: This is rather imprecise, hence our objective is to formalize 

484: this intuition. 

485: We first define the notion of a slice of  a satisfiable set 

486: of constraints. A variable $X$ in a derivation tree $T$

487: has its valuations \cite{JaM, Mar98} restricted by 

488: the set of constraints of  $T$ (which is satisfiable), 

489: so our second task will be to define a slice of a derivation tree, 

490: and finally a slice of a program (see Figure \ref{slice1}).

491:  

492: \begin{figure}[h]

493: \begin{center}

494: \epsfbox{slice.eps}

495: \caption{A slice of a constraint set, a proof tree and a program.}

496: \label{slice1}

497: \end{center}

498: \end{figure}

499: 

500: Let $C$ be a set of constraints. Intuitively we would like to remove all

501:  constraints of the set that do not restrict the valuation of a given variable.

502:  The binding of a variable 

503:  $X$  to a value $v$ is said to be a {\em  solution} of $C$ with respect to

504: $X$ iff there exists a valuation $\nu$ such that $\nu(X)=v$

505: and $\nu$ satisfies $C$. 

506: The set of all  solutions of $C$ with respect to $X$ will be denoted by

507: $Sol(X,C)$.

508: 

509: \bd 

510: A {\bf slice of a  satisfiable constraint set $C$}

511:  with respect to $X$  is a subset $S \subseteq C$ such

512: that $Sol(X,S) = Sol(X,C)$. 

513: \ed

514: In other words the set of all solutions  of a slice  $S$ of $C$ 

515: with respect to $X$ is equal to the set of 

516: all solutions of $C$ with respect to $X$.

517: Definition 1 gives implicitly a notion of {\bf minimal slice}:

518: it is a slice $S$ of $C$ such that if we further reduce $S$ to $S'$,

519: then $Sol(X,S')$ is different from $Sol(X,C)$. 

520: Notice that  the whole set $C$ is a slice of itself,

521: and that the definition does not provide

522: any hint about how to find a minimal slice. The problem of finding minimal

523: slices may be undecidable in general, since satisfiability may be undecidable.

524: So  reasoning about minimality of the constructed slices

525: seems only be possible in very restricted cases, and for some

526: specific constraint domains. Our general technique is domain

527: independent but we show in Section 5 how the groundness

528: information ( which may be provided by a specific

529: constraint solver) can be used to reduce the size of the

530: slices constructed by the general technique.

531:  

532: 

533: We now formulate the  slicing problem for derivation  trees.

534: A derivation tree  $T$ is a skeleton with a set of constraints $C(T)$.

535: The variables of $C(T)$ originate from positions of $T$. 

536: Let  $\cal P$ be a set of positions of $T$, i.e. ${\cal P} \subseteq 

537: Pos(T)$.

538: Then $\Psi({\cal P})$ identifies the variables of $C(T)$ with

539: occurrences originating from positions in $\cal P$.

540: We denote by $C_{\cal P}$  the set of all constraints of  $C(T)$ that include

541: these variables. 

542: 

543: \bd 

544: A {\bf slice of a derivation tree} $T$ with respect to 

545: a variable position of $X$ 

546: is any subset $\cal P$ of the positions of $T$ 

547: such that $C_{\cal P}$ is a slice of $C(T)$ with respect to $X$.

548: \ed

549: 

550: The intuition reflected by this definition is

551: that the constraints connected with the

552: positions of the tree not included in a slice  

553: do not influence restrictions on the

554: valuation of $X$ imposed by the tree.

555: We formalize this by referring to the formal 

556: notion of the slice of a set of constraints.

557: Notice that any superset of a slice 

558: is also a slice. 

559: 

560: Finally we define the notion of a CLP program slice

561: with respect to a variable position. We notice that every position

562: of a derivation tree $T$ is a (renamed)  copy of a program position

563: or of  a goal position. This provides a natural map

564: $\Phi_T$ of the  positions of $T$ 

565: into program positions  and goal positions. Corresponding to this definition of

566: $\Phi_T$, for a program position $q$ the set $\Phi^{-1}_T(q)$ contains those proof

567: tree positions such that if $r \in \Phi^{-1}_T(q)$ then $\Phi_T(r)=q$. 

568:  

569: 

570: 

571: 

572: 

573: \bd  {\bf A slice of a CLP  program} $P$  with respect to a program position

574: $q$ is any  set $S$ of positions of $P$ such that 

575: for every derivation tree $T$ whenever its position $r$

576: is in $\Phi_T^{-1}(q),$ 

577:  there exists a  slice $Q$ of $T$ with respect to $r$  such that

578:  $\Phi_T(Q)\subseteq S$. 

579: \ed 

580: 

581: This means  that for any derivation tree position $r$, such that $\Phi_T(r)=q$,

582: and program slice $S$ with respect to $q$, the value of the variable in $r$  

583: can only be influenced  by variants of the program positions in $S$.

584: 

585: %Intuitively, we expect the positions of $P$  not included in a slice 

586: %$S$ with respect to an occurrence  of a

587: %variable $X$ in the program  not to influence the solutions

588: %of $X$ in any computation of $P$. In other words, 

589: %for  every position  of $X$ in any derivation tree $T$ 

590: %there should exist a  slice of $T$ with respect to this position 

591: %that maps into a subset of $S$.

592: 

593: 

594: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

595: 

596: 

597: \section{Dependency-based slicing}

598: 

599: The formal definitions of the previous section

600:   make it possible to state

601: precisely our objective, which is automatic construction of slices.

602: 

603: Our formulation defines slicing of a CLP program in terms of

604: the slicing of sets of constraints. 

605: Generally it is  undecidable whether a subset of

606: a set of constraints is a slice.

607: This section presents a rather straightforward sufficient

608: condition for this.

609: We provide here a ``syntactic'' approach to  slicing  

610:  constraint stores, proof trees and programs. 

611: The propositions follow easily from the definitions

612: and will be stated without proof. 

613: More details can be found  in the technical report  \cite{Mal98}.   

614: 

615: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

616: 

617: 

618: \subsection{Slicing  sets of constraints}

619: 

620: 

621: We use variable sharing between constraints 

622: as a basis for slicing  sets of constraints.

623: Let $C$ be a set of constraints, and $vars(C)$ 

624: the set of all variables occurring in the  constraints 

625: in $C$. Let  $X,Y$ be variables in $vars(C)$. 

626: $X$ is said to {\bf depend explicitly} 

627: on  $Y$  iff both occur in a constraint $c$ in $C$.

628: Notice that the explicit dependency relation is symmetric

629: and reflexive but need not be transitive.

630: 

631: \bd 

632: A {\bf dependency relation} on $vars(C)$ is

633: the transitive closure of the explicit dependency

634: relation.

635: \ed

636: The dependency relation on $C$ will be denoted by $dep_C$.

637: Notice that $dep_C$ is an equivalence relation on $vars(C)$.

638: We map any   equivalence class $[X]_{dep_C}$ to the

639: subset $C_X$ of $C$ that consists of all constraints that include variables in $[X]_{dep}$. Then {\bf $C_X$ is a slice of $C$} (see \cite{Mal98}).

640: 

641: \be 

642: For the set of constraints of 

643: Example 1 the dependency relation has 

644: two equivalence classes:

645: $\{X,Y,U,V\}$ and $\{Z\}$ and gives the

646: following slice of $C$ with respect to $X$:

647: \[C_X = \{X-Y=1, \ X=U, \ Y=V, \ U+V=3 \} \]

648: \ee

649: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

650: 

651: 

652: \subsection{Slicing of derivation  trees}

653: 

654: We defined the concept of slice for a derivation

655: tree by referring to the notion of slice of

656: a set of constraints. To construct slices of

657: derivation trees we introduce a dependency relation

658: on the positions of a derivation tree.

659: We now define a direct dependency relation

660: $\sim_T$ on $Pos(T)$.  It can be related to the dependency relation on

661: $vars(C(T))$ \cite{Mal98} and hence can be used for slicing  $T$.

662: 

663: \bd 

664: Let $T$ be a derivation tree. The direct dependency 

665: relation $\sim_T$ on $Pos(T)$ is defined as follows:\\

666: $\alpha \sim _T \beta$  iff  one of the following conditions holds:

667: \begin{enumerate}

668: \item $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are  positions in an occurrence

669: of a clause constraint (constraint edge).

670: \item $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are  positions in a node equation (transition edge).

671: \item $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are  positions in an occurrence

672: of a term (functor edge).

673: \item $\alpha$ and $\beta$ share a  variable (local edge).

674: \end{enumerate}  

675: \ed

676: Observe that the relation is both reflexive and symmetric.

677: The transitive  closure $\sim^*_T$ of the direct 

678: dependency relation will be called the {\em dependency relation} 

679: on $Pos(T)$. So  $\sim^*_T$ is an equivalence relation.

680: 

681: \begin{prop}

682: Let $T$ be a proof tree and let $\alpha$ be a variable

683: position of $T$. Then $[\alpha]_{\sim^*_T}$ is a slice

684: of $T$ with respect to $\alpha$.

685: \end{prop}

686: 

687: 

688: 

689: 

690: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

691: 

692: 

693: \subsection{Slicing of CLP  programs}

694: 

695: 

696: 

697: This section defines a dependency relation on the positions of the program

698: and then makes use of it in constructing program slices. 

699: Recall that each  position of a derivation tree $T$ ``originates''

700: from a position of the selected program $P$. This is formally 

701: captured by the map $\Phi: Pos(T) \rightarrow Pos(P)$.

702: The dependency relation $\sim_P$  on $Pos(P)$ we are going to define 

703: should reflect dependency relations in all proof trees of $P$.

704: More precisely, whenever $\alpha \sim_T \beta$  

705: in some tree $T$ we would also like to have $\Phi(\alpha) \sim_P 

706: \Phi(\beta)$.

707: 

708: 

709: \bd 

710: Let $P$ be a CLP program. The direct dependency relation $\sim_P$ 

711: on $Pos(P)$ is defined as follows: $\alpha \sim_P \beta$ 

712: iff at least one of the following conditions holds:

713: 

714: \begin{enumerate}

715: \item  $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are positions of the same constraint (constraint edge).

716: \item $\alpha$ is a position of the head atom of a clause

717: $c$ and  $\beta$ is a position of a body atom of a clause 

718: $d$  and both atoms have the same 

719: predicate symbol (transition edge).

720: \item $\alpha$ and $\beta$ belong to the same argument of a 

721: function (functor edge).

722: \item $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are in the same clause and have

723: a common variable (local edge).

724: \end{enumerate}

725: \ed 

726: 

727: The dependency relation of a program can be represented

728: as a graph.

729: 

730: 

731: \begin{figure}[h]

732: \begin{center}

733: \epsfbox{kep9.eps}

734: \caption{Program dependence represented in graphical form  and the backward slice with respect to Z in p(X,Y,Z))}

735: \label{slice2}

736: \end{center}

737: \end{figure}

738: 

739: 

740: Comparing the definitions of $\sim_T$ and $\sim_P$ one can

741: check that   whenever 

742: $\alpha \sim_T \beta$  

743: in some tree $T$ of $P$ then  

744:   $\Phi(\alpha) \sim_P \Phi(\beta)$ as well.

745: Consequently, for any proof tree $T$ 

746:  $(\alpha \sim_T^* \beta)  \Rightarrow \Phi(\alpha) \sim_P^* \Phi(\beta)$.

747: The transitive closure $\sim_P^*$ is an equivalence relation on 

748: $Pos(P)$.

749: The following result shows how $\sim_P^*$ can be used for the slicing

750: of $P$.

751: 

752: \begin{prop}

753: Let $P$ be a CLP program and let $\beta$ be a position of $P$.

754: Then $[\beta]_{\sim_P^*}$ is a slice of $P$ with respect to $\beta$.

755: \end{prop}

756: 

757: Figure \ref{slice2} shows the program dependences and a backward slice of the program  in Example 1  with respect to $Z$ in $p(X,Y,Z)$. For the program in Example 1 $\sim_P^*$ has two equivalence classes.

758: One of them includes  all occurrences of $Z$ and the 

759: occurrence of the constant 42. The other consists of  the 

760: remaining positions. 

761: 

762:     

763: Definition 6 with Proposition 2 give a method for constructing

764: program slices without referring to proof trees. 

765: Thus, we obtain a {\bf static slicing}

766: technique for CLP. The mapping $\Phi$ was  introduced  to argue about

767: correctness of this technique. 

768:  These results also confirm the correctness of the

769:   slicing algorithm in \cite{Gyi} since a logic program can be viewed  as

770:    a constraint logic  program. \\

771: The proposition shows that the concept of dependency relation

772: on program positions provides a sufficient condition for slicing

773: a CLP program. However, the slice obtained may be quite large, sometimes 

774: it may even include the whole constraint store. 

775:  

776: We propose two ways for  addressing  this problem. 

777: On one hand, improvement is possible if we handle the so called 

778: ``calling context problem''\cite{Reps94} which appears when 

779: the same predicate is called from two different clauses. 

780: As we explained in \cite{Mal98}  it is possible to adapt to CLP 

781: the solution proposed by Horwitz et. al \cite{Reps94} for procedural languages. Another way  of reducing the size

782:  of  slices is to infer and to take into account 

783: information about proliferation of ground instantiations

784: during the execution of the program. A  directional

785: dynamic slicing technique based on this idea 

786: is presented in the next section.

787: 

788: 

789: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

790: 

791: 

792: 

793: \section{Dynamic directional  slicing}

794: 

795: All the dependency relations discussed so far were  symmetric.

796: Intuitively, for a constraint $c(X,Y)$

797:  a restriction imposed on valuations of $X$ usually

798: influences admissible valuations of $Y$ and vice versa.

799: However if $c(X,Y)$ belongs to a satisfiable constraint set $C$

800: and some other constraints of $C$ make $X$ ground then

801: the slice of $C$ with respect to $X$ need not include $c(X,Y)$.

802: For example, if $C = \{X+1=0, Y>X \}$ is interpreted on the integer

803: domain  then $\{X+1=0\}$ is a slice of $C$ with respect to $X$.

804: This slice can be constructed by using information about

805: groundness of variables occurring  in the dependency graph.

806: %This slice cannot be obtained by analysis of $dep_C$ alone.

807: 

808: 

809: 

810: This section shows how to use groundness information

811: in derivation tree  slicing, that is in dynamic slicing

812: of CLP programs. It extends to CLP the ideas of dynamic

813: slicing for logic programs presented in \cite{Gyi}.

814: In our approach groundness

815: is captured by adding directionality information to dependency graphs.

816: The directed graphs show the propagation of ground data

817: during the  execution of  CLP programs, and these graphs can then be used to

818:  produce more precise slices.

819: The groundness information will be collected during

820: the computation that constructs the derivation tree to be

821: sliced. The proposed concepts are also applicable to the case

822: of static slicing, where the groundness information has to

823: be inferred by static analysis of the program. This is however

824: not discussed in  this paper.

825: %The novelty of this section is that we extended a backward dynamic logic

826: % programming slicing technique \cite{Gyi} for constraint logic programs

827: %using the results of the dependency analysis defined in the previous

828: %sections.

829: 

830: \subsection{Groundness Annotations}

831: 

832: Groundness information associated with a derivation tree will be

833: expressed as an annotation of its positions.

834: The annotation classifies the positions of a derivation tree or

835: the positions of the CLP program.

836: The positions are classified as

837: {\em inherited} (marked  with $\downarrow$),

838: {\em synthesized} ($\uparrow$) and {\em dual} ($\updownarrow$).

839: An annotation is {\em partial} if some positions are dual. Formally speaking,

840:  an annotation is a mapping

841: $\mu$ from the positions into the set

842: $\{\downarrow,\uparrow,\updownarrow\}$ \cite{DM93}.

843: 

844: The intended meaning of the annotation is as follows.

845: An  inherited position is a position which is   ground at time of

846: calling, that is when the equation involving this position

847: is first created during the construction of the derivation tree.

848: A synthesized positions is a position  which is  ground at

849: success, that is when the subtree having the position in its

850: root label is completed in the computation process.

851: The dual positions of a proof tree are those for which

852: no groundness information is given, including  those

853: which are ground neither at call nor at success.

854: 

855: 

856: 

857: The annotations will be collected during the execution

858: of the program. Alternatively, they may be inferred

859: with some straightforward inference rules discussed in \cite{Mal98}.

860: 

861: 

862: %The annotations may be

863: % given by the user or inferred from partial annotations.

864: We now introduce the following auxiliary terminology relevant to the

865: annotated positions of a CLP program.

866: The inherited positions of the head atoms and the synthesized positions of the

867: body atoms are called {\em input positions}. Similarly, the synthesized

868: positions of the head atoms and  inherited positions of the body atoms are

869: called {\em output positions}.

870: Note that dual positions

871: are not strictly classified as input or output ones.

872: Alternatively, if we say that a position is annotated as an

873: output  we  mean that it is annotated

874: as inherited provided it is a position in a body atom,

875: or annotated as synthesized if it is a position of the head of a

876: clause.

877: 

878: \be Consider the following CLP program:

879: \begin{verbatim}

880: 1. p(X,Y) :- r(X), q(X,Y).

881: 2. r(3).

882: 3. q(U,V) :- {U+V = 5}.

883: \end{verbatim}

884: 

885: \ee

886: The corresponding annotated proof tree for the goal $p(X,Y)$

887: is presented in Figure \ref{annot1}, where the actual positions have been

888: replaced

889: by I (the input positions) and by O (the output positions):

890: 

891: \begin{figure}[h]

892: \begin{center}

893: \epsfbox{skep20.eps}

894: \caption{The annotated proof tree for Example 5}

895: \label{annot1}

896: \end{center}

897: \end{figure}

898: 

899: The annotation reflects groundness propagation during

900: the computation, as discussed below.

901: The variables $X$ and $Y$ of $p(X,Y)$ are annotated as output, since they are

902: ground at success of $p$, and $p(X,Y)$ is a head atom. For the same reason the

903:  argument of the fact $r(3)$ in node 2 is annotated as output.

904:  The variable $U$ in the first argument of the predicate $q(U,V)$ in node 3 is

905: ground at call, so it is annotated as input, while $V$ is ground at success of

906: $q$ so it

907: is annotated as output.

908: 

909: % Having input/output information for the head predicates

910: %in a proof tree, we can extend it in a certain way to the body predicates. For

911: %example the variable $X$ of predicate $r(X)$ in the body of node 1 is

912: %annotated

913: %to Input, since this is a body predicate that became ground at success. This

914: %is

915: %clear from the fact that node 2 is a child of node 1, and $U$ is annotated to

916: %Output in $r(U)$.  \\

917: %In \cite{Mal98} we defined  rules for extending the annotation over the whole

918: %proof tree. \\

919: 

920: In a CLP program groundness of a position depends generally on

921:  the used  constraint solver.

922: %  {\bf Also the semantics of specific constraints may identify some constraint

923: %positions as inputs or outputs.

924: Monitoring the execution, also in this case,  we are able to annotate

925: certain positions as inputs or outputs.

926: For example the $indomain(X)$ constraint

927: of CHIP instantiates $X$ to a value in its domain, so that $X$ is an input

928: position.

929: Rational solvers can usually solve linear equations. For example in the

930: rational constraint  $Y=2*X+Z$, $X$ can be annotated input  if $Y$

931: an $Z$ are output. 

932: 

933: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

934: 

935: \subsection{Directional slicing  of  derivation trees}

936: 

937: 

938: 

939: Having input/output information for positions of a derivation tree,

940: we then add directions to its dependence graph. The following definition

941: describes how it can be achieved.

942: 

943: \bd {\bf  Directed  Dependency Graph of a Proof Tree} \\

944: Let  $T$ be a proof tree, $T_G = (TreePos(T), \sim _T)$

945: its proof tree dependence graph,

946: then the directed dependence graph of $T(P)$ can be defined as: \\

947: $T_{DG} = (TreePos(T), \rightarrow_{T})$, where:

948: \begin{itemize}

949: \item $\alpha \rightarrow _{T(G)} \beta$ if

950: $\alpha \sim _{T (G)} \beta $ is a transition edge,

951:  $\alpha$ is an output  position and $\beta$ is an input

952: position

953: \item $\alpha \rightarrow _{T(G)} \beta$

954: if $\alpha \sim _{T(G)} \beta $ is a local edge,

955:  $\alpha$ is an input position and $\beta$ is an output position

956: \item $\alpha \rightarrow _{T(G)} \beta$

957: and $\beta \rightarrow _{T(G)} \alpha$

958: in every other case when $\alpha \sim _{T(G)} \beta$

959: \end{itemize}

960: \ed

961: 

962: From the definition of $\rightarrow_{T(G)}$

963:  assuming correctness

964: of the annotation we find that if $\alpha$ is a  position

965: of $X$ in $T$ and it is annotated as input or as output then $C(T)$

966: binds $X$ to a single value.  This value is determined

967: by the constraints connected with those positions that are in the set

968: $\{\beta | {\beta} \rightarrow^*_{T(G)} \alpha\}$. Thus we have:

969: 

970: 

971: 

972: \begin{prop}

973: $\{\beta | {\beta} \rightarrow ^*_{T(G)} \alpha\}$ is a slice

974: of $T$ with respect to $\alpha$.

975: \end{prop}

976: 

977: 

978: These slices are usually more precise than in the case when the groundness

979: information is not used.

980: 

981: %By using directed dependency graphs  obtain more precise slices

982: %in numerous cases.

983: 

984: %The annotation inference rules used for derivation trees

985: %are not directly applicable to programs.

986: The concept of directed dependency graph can be extended

987: to programs and used for static slicing. This requires good

988: methods for static groundness analysis to infer annotations

989: for program positions. Some suggestions for that can be

990: found in \cite{Mal98}.

991: 

992: 

993: 

994: 

995: 

996: 

997: 

998: 

999: 

1000: 

1001: 

1002: 

1003: 

1004: 

1005: 

1006: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1007: 

1008: 

1009: \section{A Prototype Implementation  }

1010: 

1011: We  developed a prototype in SICStus Prolog for dynamic backward slicing 

1012: of constraint logic  programs written in SICStus.

1013: The tool  handles a realistic subset of Prolog,

1014: including constructs such as {\em cut, if-then} and {\em  or}.

1015: The {\em inputs} of the slicing system are:  the source code, 

1016: a test case (a goal) and (after the execution) 

1017: the   execution traces given by the Prolog interpreter. 

1018: From this information the 

1019: {\em Directed  Proof Tree  Dependence Graph} (Definition 7)

1020:  may be constructed.  

1021: The following three types of slice algorithms were implemented  

1022: (see Figure \ref{slice4}):

1023: \begin{enumerate}

1024: \item {\bf Proof tree slice} \\

1025: In this case the user chooses  an argument position of the created Proof Tree, 

1026: and the slice is constructed with respect to this proof tree position 

1027: using the Directed Proof Tree Dependency Graph (see Definition 7). 

1028: This kind of slice is useful when the user is interested in the data dependences

1029:   of the Proof Tree.   

1030: \item {\bf Dynamic slice} \\

1031: This case is very similar to 1, but the constructed slice 

1032: of the Proof Tree is mapped back to the program.

1033: This is the 

1034: classic dynamic slice approach \cite{KAR97}, as in the case 

1035: of procedural languages. 

1036: So this slice provides a slice of the program.

1037: \item {\bf Program position slice} \\

1038: In this case the user selects a program position. The system provides all 

1039: instances of this program position in the Proof Tree,  creates 

1040: the proof tree slice for every instance, then the union of these 

1041: slices are constructed and mapped back to the program. So this 

1042: algorithm also provides a slice of the program,  

1043: which  shows all dependences of a program position for a given test case.    

1044: \end{enumerate}

1045: \begin{figure}[h]

1046: \begin{center}

1047: \epsfbox{skep21.eps}

1048: \caption{Proof Tree, Dynamic and Program Position Slice.}

1049: \label{slice4}

1050: \end{center}

1051: \end{figure}

1052: A graphical interface draws the proof tree (see Figure 7), marked with different 

1053: colored  nodes that are in the Proof tree  slice, and 

1054: in the case of a dynamic slice and program position slice the 

1055: corresponding slice of the program is highlighted. The label of the nodes

1056: identify the nodes of the proof tree including the name of the predicate and the

1057: annotation of its arguments.  

1058: 

1059:     

1060: In the implementation we applied a very simple annotation technique: 

1061:  the inherited positions were those which were ground at the time of calling, 

1062:  while synthesized positions were those which were ground at success.   

1063: This method provides  precise annotation, because we continuously extract information 

1064:  from the actual state of the constraint store. However, in the current

1065:  implementation slicing can only be done on  argument positions. If an argument

1066:   includes several variables it is not possible to distinguish between them, 

1067:   which makes 

1068:  the constructed slice "less precise" (compared to the minimal slice).

1069:  So, our aim is to improve the

1070:   existing implementation, extend it to variable positions.

1071: 

1072: 

1073: In the present version of the tool

1074: the sliced proof tree corresponds to the first

1075: success branch of the SLD tree. As the proof tree slice definition

1076: is quite general,  there is no real difficulty in applying the

1077: technique to all success  branches of SLD tree.

1078: The extension to failure  branches is discussed in 

1079:  \cite{Deb99}. Currently we are working on an implementation of these extensions. 

1080: 

1081: 

1082: %To obtain  real experiments of the feasibility of using slicing 

1083: Systematic slicing  experiments were performed on a number

1084: of  constraint logic programs (written in SICSTus Prolog).

1085: Each of them was  executed with a number  of test inputs

1086: to collect data about the relative size of a slice with respect 

1087: to the proof tree, depending on the choice of the position.

1088: %Metrics about each individual slice were output for analysis. 

1089: The selected application programs \cite{JaM, Mar98} had different

1090:  language structures (use of cut, or, if-then, databases, compound 

1091: constraint), and were of different size.

1092: 

1093: 

1094: The summarized data of the test results on proof tree slicing

1095: is listed in {\em Table 1}. 

1096: The comparison of the three kind of slices with respect to the number of nodes

1097: are shown in Figure \ref{slices}.

1098: 

1099: \begin{table}[!h]

1100: {\tiny

1101: \begin{tabular}{|ll|c|c|c|lr|lr|} \hline

1102:  &PROGRAM&NUMBER OF&NUMBER OF &NUM. OF COMP-& AVERAGE &SIZE OF&AVERAGE& SIZE OF \\ 

1103:  &&CLAUSES&TEST CASES&UTED SLICES&THE PROOF& TREE&SLICES \\ \hline

1104:  & & & & & NODE & ARG. POS.& NODE  & ARG.POS.\\ \hline

1105:  

1106:  1 & LIGHTMEAL  & 11 & 1 & 17  &  9    & 15     & 44.64 \% & 41.17 \% \\ \hline

1107:  2 & CIRC       & 5  & 2 & 139 & 33.35 & 54.09  & 35.14 \% & 54.44 \% \\ \hline

1108:  3 & SUM        & 6  & 4 & 626 & 80.26 & 120.77 & 30.46 \% & 49.34 \% \\ \hline

1109:  4 & FIB        & 4  & 6 &1349 &399.57 & 533.51 &  7.56 \% &  8.53 \% \\ \hline

1110:  5 & SCHEDULING & 20 & 1 & 575 & 134   & 390    & 51.21 \% & 71.66 \% \\ \hline

1111:  6 & PUZZLE     & 30 & 2 &1363 &227.57 & 607.82 & 19.05 \% & 14.93 \% \\ \hline

1112: \end{tabular}

1113:   }

1114: \caption{Proof Tree Slice}

1115: \end{table}

1116: 

1117: 

1118: \begin{figure}[h]

1119: \begin{center}

1120: \epsfbox{dia2.eps}

1121: \caption{Comparison of the Proof Tree Slice,  Dynamic Slice and the Program Position Slice.}

1122: \label{slices}

1123: \end{center}

1124: \end{figure}

1125: 

1126: 

1127: 

1128: \begin{figure}[h]

1129: \begin{center}

1130: \epsfbox{gr4.eps }

1131: \caption{Displayed program and proof tree slices.}

1132: \label{elso1 kep}

1133: \end{center}

1134: \end{figure}

1135: 

1136: 

1137: %There are few things that should be observed from these results:

1138: It should be mentioned that 

1139:  the average slice size (in percent) in these experiments 

1140:   had no correlation with the size of the program. 

1141: The average slice size was $32\%$ of 

1142: the number of  executed nodes and $40\%$ of the executed argument positions. 

1143: 

1144: 

1145: The intended application of our slicing method  is 

1146: to support debugging of constraint programs.

1147: A bug in a program shows up as a symptom during the

1148: execution of the program on some input. 

1149: This means that in some computation step

1150: (i.e. in some derivation tree)

1151: a variable of the program is bound in a way 

1152: that does not conform to user expectations.

1153: A slice of the derivation tree with respect to this occurrence

1154: of the variable can be mapped into the text of the program

1155: and will identify a part  of the program 

1156: where the undesired binding was produced.

1157: This would provide a focus for debugging,

1158: whatever is the debugging technique used.

1159: Intersection of the slices produced for different

1160: runs of the buggy program may further narrow the focus.

1161: 

1162: In particular, our slicing technique can be combined

1163: with  Shapiro's algorithmic debugging \cite{Shap},

1164: designed originally for logic programs. 

1165: As shown in \cite{IDTS} the slice  of a derivation tree 

1166: of a logic program  may  reduce the number of queries of

1167: algorithmic debugger.  

1168: This technique can also be applied to

1169: the case of algorithmic debugging of CLP programs

1170: discussed in [19]. 

1171: 

1172: 

1173: 

1174: 

1175: 

1176: 

1177: 

1178: 

1179: 

1180: 

1181: 

1182: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1183: 

1184: \section{Related Work}

1185: 

1186: Program slicing has been widely studied for imperative programs 

1187: \cite{GBF, KAM93, HR92, KAR97, Reps94}. To our knowledge only 

1188: a few papers have dealt with the problem of slicing logic programs,

1189:  and  slicing of

1190: constraint logic programs has not been investigated till now.  

1191: 

1192: We provided a theoretical basis for the slicing of  proof 

1193: trees and programs starting from a semantic definition of the 

1194: constraint set dependence. This applies as well to the special case

1195: of logic programs (the Herbrand domain). In particular  it  justifies 

1196: the slicing technique of Gyim\'othy and Paakki  \cite{Gyi} 

1197: developed to reduce the number of queries for algorithmic debugger

1198: and  makes it possible to extend  the latter to the general case of CLP.

1199: The directional slicing of Section 5 is an extension of this

1200: technique to the general case of CLP.

1201: 

1202: 

1203:  Schoening and Ducass\'e \cite{Duc} proposed a backward slicing 

1204: algorithm for Prolog which produces executable slices. For a target 

1205: Prolog program they defined a slicing criterion which consists of a 

1206: goal of $P$ and a set of argument positions $P_a$, along with a slice 

1207: $S$  as a reduced and executable program derived from $P$. 

1208: An executable slice is usually less precise but it may be used

1209: for additional test runs. Hence the objectives of their work are somewhat

1210: different from ours, and

1211: their algorithm is  applicable to a limited subset of Prolog 

1212: programs.  

1213: 

1214:  In \cite{Zhao3} Zhao et al defined some static and dynamic 

1215: slices of  concurrent logic programs called  literal dependence nets. 

1216: They presented a new program representation 

1217: called the argument dependence net for concurrent logic programs to 

1218: produce static slices at the argument level. There are some 

1219: similarities between our slicing techniques and Zhao's methods,

1220: since we also  rely on some dependency relations. However, 

1221: the focus of our work has been on CLP not on concurrent logic programs,

1222: and  our main aim has been a declarative formulation of the slicing problem 

1223: whic provides a clear reference basis for 

1224: proving the correctness of the proposed slicing methods.

1225: 

1226: 

1227: The results of  the ESPRIT Project DiSCiPl \cite{DHM00} show the importance

1228: of visualisation in the debugging of constraint programs. Our tool

1229: provides a rudimentary visualisation of the sliced proof tree.

1230: It was pointed out by Deransart and Aillaud \cite{DA00}

1231: that abstraction techniques

1232: are needed in the visualisation of the search space.

1233: Program position slicing, if applied

1234: to all branches of the SLD-tree,  provides  

1235: yet another abstraction of the search space.

1236: 

1237: 

1238: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1239: \section{Conclusions}

1240: 

1241: 

1242: The paper offers a precise declarative formulation of the slicing problem

1243: for CLP. It also  gives a solid  reference basis 

1244: for deriving various techniques of slicing  CLP programs

1245: in general and  for logic programs treated as a special case.

1246: This technique was illustrated  by deriving 

1247:  the directional data flow slicing  technique  for CLP,

1248: which is an extension of \cite{Gyi} applied to CLP. As a side effect, the latter, which was presented

1249: in somewhat pragmatic setting,  obtains a theoretical 

1250: justification.

1251: 

1252: The paper presents also a prototype slicing tool using

1253: this technique. The experiments with the tool show that

1254: the obtained slices were  quite precise in some cases,

1255: and on average provided a substantial reduction of the

1256: program.

1257: 

1258: The future work  will focus on the application 

1259:  of slicing techniques to

1260: constraint programs debugging. Two aspects being considered. 

1261: Firstly, in the manual debugging of CLP programs it is necessary

1262: to support user with a tool that facilitates the understanding

1263: of the program. We believe that a future version of our slicer

1264: equipped with suitable  visualisation features  could 

1265: be very suitable for this purpose. 

1266: Secondly, the  slicing of a derivation tree

1267: can often reduce the number of queries in 

1268: algorithmic debugging of logic programs \cite{Shap}. 

1269: (The algorithmic debugging technique has been extended

1270: to CLP  \cite{TF00}). 

1271: 

1272:  As a first step in this direction we  are going to integrate 

1273: our CLP slicing 

1274: tool  with the IDTS algorithmic debugger \cite{IDTS}, originally  

1275: developed for pure logic programs.\vspace{1.5cm} 

1276: 

1277: {\bf Acknowledgments} \\

1278: 

1279: The work of the first and second authors was supported by the grants 

1280:  OTKA T52721 and IKTA 8/99.

1281: 

1282: 

1283: 

1284: 

1285: 

1286: 

1287: 

1288: 

1289: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1290: 

1291: \bibliographystyle{plain} 

1292: 

1293: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1294: 

1295: 

1296: 

1297: 

1298:  

1299: 

1300: %\bibitem{BPM93} J. Boye, J. Paakki, J. Maluszy\'nski: Synthesis 

1301: %of Directionality Information for Functional Logic Programs, {\em In Proceedings

1302: %of Third International Workshop on Static Analysis}, LNCS 724, Springer Verlag,

1303: %pages 165-177, Padova, 1993. 

1304: 

1305: 

1306: \bibitem{DA00} P. Deransart and C. Aillaud: {\em Towards a Language

1307: for CLP Choice-tree Visualisation}, In:

1308:  P.~Deransart, M.~Hermenegildo, and J.~Ma{\l}uszy\'nski, (editors),

1309:   {\em Analysis and Visualization Tools for Constraint Programming}, LNCS.

1310:   Springer Verlag, 2000 (to appear).

1311: 

1312: \bibitem{DHM00}

1313: P.~Deransart, M.~Hermenegildo, and J.~Ma{\l}uszy\'nski, (editors),

1314:   {\em Analysis and Visualization Tools for Constraint Programming}, LNCS.

1315:   Springer Verlag, 2000 (to appear).

1316: 

1317: \bibitem{DM93} P. Deransart and J. Ma{\l}uszy{\'n}ski: 

1318: {\em A grammatical view of logic programming}. The MIT Press 1993.

1319: 

1320: %\bibitem{Duc95} M. Ducass\'e and J. Noy\'e: Logic Programming Environments: Dynamic Program Analysis and Debugging, {\em Journal of Logic Programming },vol. 19/20, pages 351-384, May/July 1994. 

1321: 

1322: \bibitem{GBF} T. Gyim\'othy, \'A. Besz\'edes and I. Forg\'acs: An Efficient 

1323: Relevant Slicing Method for Debugging. {\em  In Proceedings of 7th European 

1324: Software Engineering Conference (ESEC'99)}, LNCS 1687 Springer Verlag,

1325:  pages 303-322, Toulouse, France, September 1999. 

1326: 

1327: \bibitem{Gyi} T. Gyim\'othy and J. Paakki: Static Slicing of Logic 

1328: Programs. {\em In Proceedings of Second International Workshop on Automated and 

1329: Algorithmic Debugging (AADEBUG'95)}, pages 85-105, Saint Malo, France, May 1995.

1330: 

1331: \bibitem{Deb99} Harmath L., Szil\'agyi Gy., Gyim\'othy, T., Csirik J.: Dynamic Slicing of Logic Programs. {\em Program Analysis and verification, Fenno-Ugric

1332: Symposium (FUSST'99)}, pages 101-113, Tallin, Estonia 1999. 

1333:  

1334: \bibitem{Reps94} S. Horwitz, T. Reps and D. Binkley: Interprocedural Slicing Using Dependence Graphs. {\em In Proceedings of ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 12}, pages 26-61, 1990.

1335: 

1336: \bibitem{HR92} S. Horwitz and T. Reps: The Use of Program Dependence 

1337: Graphs in Software Engineering. {\em In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International 

1338: Conference on Software Engineering }, pages 

1339: 392-411, Melbourne, Australia, May 1992.

1340:   

1341: \bibitem{JaM} J.Jaffar and M.J.Maher: Constraint logic programming: A 

1342: survey.

1343: {\em The Journal of Logic Programming} 19/20:503-582, 1994.

1344: 

1345: \bibitem{KAM93} M. Kamkar  and P. Fritzson: Evaluation of Program 

1346: Slicing tools. {\em In 2nd International Workshop on Automated and 

1347: Algorithmic Debugging (AADEBUG'95) }, pages 51-69, Saint Malo, France, 

1348: May 1995.

1349: 

1350: \bibitem{IDTS} G. K\'okai, L Harmath, T. Gyim\'othy: Algorithmic Debugging and

1351: Testing of Prolog Programs, {\em  In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International

1352: Conference on Logic Programming, Eighth Workshop on Logic Programming

1353: Environments (ICLP'97)}, pages 14-21, Leuven, Belgium, September 1997. 

1354: 

1355: \bibitem{KAR97} B. Korel and J. Rilling: Application of Dynamic 

1356: Slicing in Program Debugging. {\em  In Proceedings of the Third 

1357: International Workshop on Automatic Debugging (AADEBUG '97)}, 

1358: Link\"oping, pages 43-59, Sweden, May 1997. 

1359: 

1360: \bibitem{Mar98} K. Marriott and P.J. Stuckey: Programming with Constraints.

1361: An Introduction. The MIT Press, 1998

1362: 

1363: 

1364: 

1365: 

1366: 

1367: 

1368: %\bibitem{STE98}C. Steindl: Intermodular Slicing of Object-oriented 

1369: %Programs. {\em In International Conference on Compiler Construction 

1370: %(CC'98)}, 1998. 

1371: 

1372: \bibitem{Duc} S. Schoening and M. Ducass\'e: A Backward Slicing 

1373: Algorithm for Prolog.  {\em In Proceedings of Third International Static Analysis  Symposium SAS'96}, LNCS 1145, 317-331, Springer-Verlag 1996.

1374: 

1375: 

1376: \bibitem{Shap} E. Shapiro: Algorithmic Debugging. {\em The MIT 

1377: Press}, 1983.

1378: 

1379: \bibitem{Mal98} Gy. Szil\'agyi, T. Gyim\'othy, J. Maluszy\'nski:

1380: Slicing of Constraint Logic Programs. Technical Report, {\em Link\"oping University

1381: Electronic Press} 1998/020, {\em www.ep.liu.se/ea/cis/1998/002}.

1382: 

1383: 

1384: 

1385: \bibitem{TF00} A. Tessier and G. F{\` e}rrand. {\em Declarative Diagnosis in 

1386: the CLP Scheme}, In:

1387:  P. Deransart, M. Hermenegildo, and J.~Ma{\l}uszy\'nski, (editors),

1388:   {\em Analysis and Visualization Tools for Constraint Programming}, LNCS.

1389:   Springer Verlag, 2000 (to appear).

1390: 

1391: \bibitem{Tip} F. Tip: A survey of Program Slicing Techniques. {\em 

1392: Journal of Programming Languauges}, Vol.3., No.3, pages 121-189,

1393: September, 1995.

1394:  

1395: 

1396: %\bibitem{We} M. Weiser: Program Slicing. 

1397: %{\em IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering,} pages 352-357, July 

1398: %1984.

1399: 

1400: \bibitem{Zhao3} J. Zhao, J. Cheng and K. Ushijima: Slicing Concurrent 

1401: Logic Programs. {\em In Proceedings of Second Fuji International Workshop on 

1402: Functional and Logic  Programming}, pages 143-162, 1997.

1403: 

1404: 

1405: \end{thebibliography}

1406: \end{document}

1407: 

1408: