ICLP 2014
30th International Conference on Logic Programming
July 19-22, Vienna, Austria
30th International Conference on Logic Programming
July 19-22, Vienna, Austria
Since the first conference held in Marseilles in 1982, ICLP has been the premier international conference for presenting research in logic programming. Contributions are sought in all areas of logic programming including but not restricted to:
All papers and technical communications will be presented during the conference. All submissions must describe original, previously unpublished research, and must not simultaneously be submitted for publication elsewhere. They must be written in English. Technical papers, application papers, and system and tool papers must not exceed 12 pages plus bibliography: however a new condensed TPLP format may be used and the papers may include appendices beyond 12 pages. The limit for technical communications is 10 pages. Submissions must be made in the condensed TPLP format via the Easychair submission system.
Update: The technical communications require the use of an additional latex style file supp.sty, which provides a few additional macros you need to use. In supp.zip you will find this style file as well as an example of its use. Look for "%%added" in the example for the few lines you need to add.
All accepted papers will be published in the journal Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP), Cambridge University Press, (CUP), in one or more special issues. In order to ensure the quality of the final version, papers may be subject to more than one round of refereeing (within the decision period). Accepted technical communications will be published in the on-line abstract of the special issue(s). The program committee may also recommend standard papers to be published as technical communications.
At the time of the conference CUP will make the web page for this(ese) TPLP issue(s) available including volume and issue numbers, table of contents, page numbers, and the papers themselves. All registered attendants at the conference will get a password for on-line access to this web page during the conference and indefinitely from then on (“lifetime access”), which can be used to read papers on line, download them, or print them for personal use. Attendants will also receive all the papers in a memory stick at the conference.
Andrey Rybalchenko, Microsoft Research
We show how automatic tools for the verification of linear and branching time properties of procedural, multi-threaded, and functional programs as well as program synthesis can be naturally and uniformly seen as solvers of constraints in form of (quantified) Horn clauses over background logical theories. Such a perspective can offer various advantages, e. g., a logical separation of concerns between constraint generation (also known as generation of proof obligations) and constraint solving (also known as proof discovery), reuse of solvers across different verifications tasks, and liberation of proof designers from low level algorithmic concerns and vice versa.
Neng-Fa Zhou, City University of New York
Logic programming has made great strides in solving combinatorial search problems, as witnessed by the cultivation of CLP, ASP, and tabled Prolog systems. Picat, a new member of this family, follows a different doctrine than Prolog in offering the core logic programming concepts: arrays and maps as basic data types; implicit pattern matching with explicit unification and explicit non-determinism; functions that are easier to use than relations for deterministic computations; loops that are more convenient than recursion for scripting and modeling purposes. Picat provides facilities for solving combinatorial search problems, including a common interface with CP, SAT, and MIP solvers, tabling for dynamic programming, and a module for planning. Picat's planner module, which is implemented by use of tabling, has produced surprising and encouraging results; thanks to term-sharing and resource-bounded tabled search, it overwhelmingly outperforms the cutting-edge ASP and PDDL planners on several planning benchmarks used in recent ASP and IPC competitions.
| Elvira Albert | Complutense University of Madrid |
| Sergio Antoy | Portland State University |
| Marcello Balduccini | Drexel University |
| François Bry | University of Munich |
| Mats Carlsson | SICS |
| Iliano Cervesato | Carnegie Mellon University - Qatar Campus |
| Kaustuv Chaudhuri | INRIA |
| Michael Codish | Ben-Gurion University |
| Danny De Schreye | KU Leuven |
| Marc Denecker | KU Leuven |
| Esra Erdem | Sabanci University |
| Samir Genaim | Universidad Complutense de Madrid |
| Gopal Gupta | University of Texas at Dallas |
| Michael Hanus | CAU Kiel |
| Rémy Haemmerlé | Universidad Politécnica de Madrid |
| Ethan Jackson | Microsoft |
| Gerda Janssens | KU Leuven |
| Michael Kifer | State University of New York at Stony Brook |
| Andy King | University of Kent |
| Günter Kniesel | University of Bonn |
| Yanhong Annie Liu | State University of New York at Stony Brook |
| Michael Maher | University of New South Wales |
| Rainer Manthey | University of Bonn |
| Fred Mesnard | Universite de la Reunion |
| Jose Morales | IMDEA Software Research Institute |
| Alberto Pettorossi | Università di Roma Tor Vergata |
| Gianfranco Rossi | Università di Parma |
| Vitor Santos Costa | Universidade do Porto |
| Peter Schachte | University of Melbourne |
| Torsten Schaub | University of Potsdam |
| Hirohisa Seki | Nagoya Institute of Technology |
| Peter Stuckey | University of Melbourne |
| Paul Tarau | University of North Texas |
| Michael Thielscher | University of New South Wales |
| Hans Tompits | Vienna University of Technology |
| Francesca Toni | Imperial College London |
| German Vidal | Universitat Politecnica de Valencia |
| Jan Wielemaker | University of Amsterdam |
| Stefan Woltran | Vienna University of Technology |
| Neng-Fa Zhou | City University of New York |