You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
We present the CIFF proof procedure for abductive logic programming with constraints, and we prove its correctness. CIFF is an extension of the IFF proof procedure for abductive logic programming, relaxing the original restrictions over variable quantification (allowedness conditions) and incorporating a constraint solver to deal with numerical constraints as in constraint logic programming. Finally, we describe the CIFF system, comparing it with state of the art abductive systems and answer set solvers and showing how to use it to program some applications. (To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming - TPLP).

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: We present HYPROLOG, a novel integration of Prolog with assumptions and abduction which is implemented in and partly borrows syntax from Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) for integrity constraints. Assumptions are a mechanism inspired by linear logic and taken over from Assumption Grammars. The language shows a novel flexibility in the interaction between the different paradigms, including all additional built-in predicates and constraints solvers that may be available. Assumptions and abduction are especially useful for language processing, and we can show how HYPROLOG works seamlessly together with the grammar notation provided by the underlying Prolog system. An operational semantics is given which complies with standard declarative semantics for the “pure” sublanguages, while for the full HYPROLOG language, it must be taken as definition. The implementation is straightforward and seems to provide for abduction, the most efficient of known implementations; the price, however, is a limited use of negations. The main difference wrt. previous implementations of abduction is that we avoid any level of metainterpretation by having Prolog execute the deductive steps directly and by treating abducibles (and assumptions as well) as CHR constraints.

[2]: Abstract Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) are our proposal to allow more flexibility and application-oriented customization of constraint systems. CHR are a declarative language extension especially designed for writing user-defined constraints. CHR are essentially a committed-choice language consisting of multi-headed guarded rules that rewrite constraints into simpler ones until they are solved. In this broad survey we aim at covering all aspects of CHR as they currently present themselves. Going from theory to practice, we will define syntax and semantics for CHR, introduce an important decidable property, confluence, of CHR programs and define a tight integration of CHR with constraint logic programming languages. This survey then describes implementations of the language before we review several constraint solvers – both traditional and nonstandard ones – written in the CHR language. Finally we introduce two innovative applications that benefited from using CHR.
In Section , we present some experimental results on concrete examples and in comparison with the and the aforementioned answer set solvers. Note that [1] gives an extensive experimental comparison between Hyprolog, another relevant system for abductive logic programming, and CIFF, some ASP systems and the . Whereas CIFF is a meta-interpreter, Hyprolog avoids meta-interpretation by directly extending Prolog to incorporate abduction and constraint handling a la CHR [2] . However, Hyprolog has restrictions on the use of negation, as mentioned in [1] .