A Survey on String Constraint Solving
–arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence
They are a fundamental datatype in all the modern programming languages, and operations on strings frequently occur in disparate fields such as software analysis, model checking, database applications, web security, bioinformatics and so on[3, 11, 19, 21, 27, 28, 49, 60, 67]. Reasoning over strings requires solving arbitrarily complex string constraints, i.e., relations defined on a number of string variables. Typical examples of string constraints are string length, (dis-)equality, concatenation, substring, regular expression matching. With the term "string constraint solving" (in short, string solving or SCS) we refer to the process of modelling, processing, and solving combinatorial problems involving string constraints. We may see SCS as a declarative paradigm which falls at the intersection between constraint solving and combinatorics on words: the user states a problem with string variables and constraints, and a suitable string solver seeks a solution for that problem. Although works on the combinatorics of words were already published in the 1940s [110], the dawn of SCS dates back to the late 1980s in correspondence with the rise of Constraint Programming (CP) [114] and Constraint Logic Programming(CLP)[73] paradigms. Pioneers in this field were for example Trilogy[142], a language providing strings, integer and real constraints, and CLP(Σ) [144], an instance of the CLP scheme representing strings as regular sets. The latter in particular was the first known attempt to use string constraints like regular membership to denote regular sets.
arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence
Mar-1-2020
- Country:
- South America > Argentina
- Pampas > Buenos Aires F.D. > Buenos Aires (0.04)
- Pacific Ocean > North Pacific Ocean
- San Francisco Bay (0.04)
- Oceania > Australia
- New South Wales > Sydney (0.04)
- North America
- United States
- Virginia > Fairfax County
- Herndon (0.04)
- Texas > Travis County
- Austin (0.04)
- Pennsylvania > Allegheny County
- Pittsburgh (0.04)
- New York > New York County
- New York City (0.14)
- Florida > Pinellas County
- St. Petersburg (0.04)
- California
- San Francisco County > San Francisco (0.14)
- Santa Clara County > Palo Alto (0.04)
- Virginia > Fairfax County
- Canada
- Ontario > Toronto (0.04)
- British Columbia > Metro Vancouver Regional District
- Vancouver (0.14)
- United States
- Europe
- Austria > Vienna (0.14)
- Russia (0.04)
- Greece > Central Macedonia
- Thessaloniki (0.04)
- Netherlands > North Holland
- Amsterdam (0.04)
- Hungary > Budapest
- Budapest (0.04)
- Germany
- Berlin (0.04)
- Hesse > Darmstadt Region
- Wiesbaden (0.04)
- Baden-Württemberg > Karlsruhe Region
- Heidelberg (0.04)
- Sweden > Uppsala County
- Uppsala (0.04)
- France
- Île-de-France > Paris
- Paris (0.04)
- Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur > Bouches-du-Rhône
- Marseille (0.04)
- Pays de la Loire > Loire-Atlantique
- Nantes (0.04)
- Occitanie > Haute-Garonne
- Toulouse (0.04)
- Île-de-France > Paris
- Ireland > Leinster
- County Dublin > Dublin (0.04)
- United Kingdom
- Scotland > City of Edinburgh
- Edinburgh (0.04)
- England > Cambridgeshire
- Cambridge (0.04)
- Scotland > City of Edinburgh
- Portugal
- Italy > Emilia-Romagna
- Metropolitan City of Bologna > Bologna (0.04)
- Spain > Region of Murcia
- Murcia (0.04)
- Asia
- Russia (0.04)
- Indonesia > Bali (0.04)
- Taiwan > Taiwan Province
- Taipei (0.04)
- Middle East
- Jordan (0.04)
- Israel > Haifa District
- Haifa (0.04)
- India > Maharashtra
- Mumbai (0.04)
- China > Guangdong Province
- Guangzhou (0.04)
- Azerbaijan > Mountainous Shirvan Economic Region
- Shamakhi District > Shamakhi (0.04)
- South America > Argentina
- Genre:
- Overview (1.00)
- Research Report > Promising Solution (0.48)
- Industry:
- Information Technology > Security & Privacy (0.67)
- Technology: