How to count the predicates - prolog

I'm looking for a way to count the numbers of predicates.
Example:
%facts
has_subclass(thing,animal).
has_subclass(thing,tree).
has_subclass(thing,object).
% and I ask
count_has_subclass(thing,X).
% result
X = 3.

For facts like your example:
count_has_subclass(What, Count):-
findall(1, call(has_subclass(What, _)), L),
length(L, Count).

We can use findall/3 for this, and then use length/2 to obtain the length of the list:
count_has_subclass(What, N):-
findall(X, has_subclass(What, X), L),
length(L, N).
If it is however possible that has_subclass/2 yields the same values multiple times for a given key (like thing), then we can use for example sort/2 as a duplicate filter, like:
count_has_subclass(What, N):-
findall(X, has_subclass(What, X), L),
sort(L, S), %% remove duplicates
length(S, N).
Note that if What is a free variable, then you will count all yeilds of has_subclass(_, _). (optionally with a uniqness filter on the second parameter).

Using the standard setof/3 is a better option as it allows easy definition of a more general predicate that can enumerate solutions when the class argument is not bound. For example, assume the following database:
has_subclass(thing,animal).
has_subclass(thing,tree).
has_subclass(thing,object).
has_subclass(animal,cat).
has_subclass(animal,dog).
has_subclass(tree,pine).
has_subclass(tree,oak).
And the definition:
subclass_count(Class, Count) :-
setof(Subclass, has_subclass(Class, Subclass), Subclasses),
length(Subclasses, Count).
Sample call:
| ?- subclass_count(Class, Count).
Class = animal
Count = 2 ? ;
Class = thing
Count = 3 ? ;
Class = tree
Count = 2
yes
If you try instead one of the findall/3 solutions in the other answers, we get instead:
| ?- count_has_subclass(What, Count).
Count = 7
But note that this solution also have a sensible interpretation as returning the number of all existing subclasses when the class is not specified.

To build a list just to count solutions seems 'old style', but in traditional Prolog there is only the DB (assert/retract) alternative to overcome the 'stateless' nature of computations. Indeed findall/3 and friends builtins could be (naively) rewritten by means of assert/retract. But something have shown up since the early 80's ages :). I illustrate with SWI-Prolog, but - more or less naively - all of them could be implemented by assert/retract. Of course, most Prolog implementations have 'non logical' (or 'imperative', or 'impure') facilities to implement such basic task, without resorting to the heavyweight DB interface - like setarg/3, nb_setval/2 and others...
I digress... library(aggregate) should be shown first:
?- aggregate(count, T^has_subclass(thing,T), C).
C = 3.
This lib is well worth to study, does a lot more than - efficiently - counting...
Another, recent, addition is library(solution_sequences). It's not more efficient than setof/3 + length/2, guess, but interesting in its own. Counting is a bit more involved, and uses call_nth/2:
?- order_by([desc(C)],call_nth(has_subclass(thing,T),C)).
C = 3,
T = object ;
...
Some far simpler code of mine, based on nb_setarg/3 (and help from #false):
?- [carlo(snippets/lag)].
true.
?- integrate(count,has_subclass(thing,T),C).
C = 3.

Related

PROLOG - Get a list of all the rules an entity verifies

I'm formalizing linguistic data into predicates and entities and doing some reasoning in prolog. Imagine I begin with:
breathe(X) :- snore(X).
sleep(X) :- snore(X).
rest(X) :- sleep(X).
live(X) :- breathe(X); eat(X); sleep(X).
snore(john).
sleep(lucy).
My data can get big enough and I would like to get a list of entities and predicates in order to iterate them and check how many predicates an entity verifies, the output can be lists like:
[john, [snore, breathe, sleep, rest, live]]
[lucy, [sleep, rest]]
or predicates
participant(john, [snore, breathe, sleep, rest, live]).
participant(lucy, [sleep, rest]).
Thanks for your help, I have no clue at this moment.
Representing live knowledge about an abstract world can get messy. There are a lot of different possibilities, and a lot of variance depending of which Prolog system you're using.
Here is an example of your code running in SWI-Prolog, but the same idea should work (more or less) unchanged on any Prolog out there that provides call/N and setof/3 builtins.
:- module(list_entities_that_verify_a_pred,
[participant/2]).
:- redefine_system_predicate(sleep/1).
:- discontiguous breathe/1,sleep/1,rest/1,live/1,snore/1.
breathe(X) :- snore(X).
sleep(X) :- snore(X).
rest(X) :- sleep(X).
live(X) :- breathe(X); /* eat(X);*/ sleep(X).
snore(john).
sleep(lucy).
to_verify(breathe).
to_verify(sleep).
to_verify(rest).
to_verify(live).
to_verify(snore).
participant(Person,Verified) :-
setof(Pred,(to_verify(Pred),call(Pred,Person)),Verified).
First, note I have commented the call to eat/1, to avoid a missing definition exception, so we can try to call the partecipant/2 predicate:
?- participant(P,L).
P = john,
L = [breathe, live, rest, sleep, snore] ;
P = lucy,
L = [live, rest, sleep].
From an architecture viewpoint, the main point to note it's the introduction of to_verify/1, to ease the workflow.
An alternative is using forward chaining using Constraint Handling Rules, an underappreciated paradigm of computation.
This is done using SWI-Prolog's CHR library. The rule engine is implemented "on top of Prolog" and adding a rule to the "constraint store" looks like calling a Prolog goal. The "constraint store" holding the current state of computation disappears once the goal completes.
Note that I'm currently not 100% certain of CHR semantics (it seems my brain is hardwired to read Prolog now) but this code seems to work.
In file sleep.pl:
:- module(forward,[
snore/1,
sleep/1,
collect/2,
pull/2
]).
:- use_module(library(chr)).
:- chr_constraint snore/1, sleep/1, breathe/1.
:- chr_constraint eat/1, live/1, rest/1, collect/2, pull/2.
snore(X) ==> breathe(X).
snore(X) ==> sleep(X).
sleep(X) ==> rest(X).
breathe(X) ==> live(X).
eat(X) ==> live(X).
sleep(X) ==> live(X).
live(X) \ live(X) <=> true. % eliminates duplicates
collect(Who,L),snore(Who) <=> collect(Who,[snore|L]).
collect(Who,L),sleep(Who) <=> collect(Who,[sleep|L]).
collect(Who,L),breathe(Who) <=> collect(Who,[breathe|L]).
collect(Who,L),eat(Who) <=> collect(Who,[eat|L]).
collect(Who,L),live(Who) <=> collect(Who,[live|L]).
collect(Who,L),rest(Who) <=> collect(Who,[rest|L]).
pull(Who,L) \ collect(Who2,L2) <=> Who = Who2, L = L2.
Now we just need to start SWI-Prolog, and issue these commands:
?- [sleep].
true.
?- sleep(lucy),
collect(lucy,[]),
pull(Who,L).
Who = lucy,
L = [rest,live,sleep],
pull(lucy,[rest,live,sleep]).
?- snore(john),
collect(john,[]),
pull(Who,L).
Who = john,
L = [rest,live,breathe,sleep,snore],
pull(john,[rest,live,breathe,sleep,snore]).
You asked in a comment to Carlo's answer:
Is there a way to expose the eat predicate and the like? It looks like
I'm going to have a lot of unmatched predicate networks like owl and
proton because I'm going to use few facts and a lot of semantic
relations from Wordnet.
The issue here seems to be one of closed-world assumption (CWA) where predicates are declared (and thus can be called without generating errors) but not necessarily defined. In this case, as per CWA, what we cannot prove is true, is assumed to be false. E.g. the eat/1 predicate in your example or the "lot of unmatched predicate networks" in your comment.
A possible solution would be to define your entities as Logtalk objects that implement a protocol (or a set of protocols) that declare all the predicates you want to use. Reusing your example:
:- protocol(predicates).
:- public([
breathe/0, sleep/0, rest/0, live/0,
snore/0, eat/0
]).
:- end_protocol.
:- category(generic,
implements(predicates)).
breathe :- ::snore.
sleep :- ::snore.
rest :- ::sleep.
live :- ::breathe; ::eat; ::sleep.
:- end_category.
:- object(john, imports(generic)).
snore.
:- end_object.
:- object(lucy, imports(generic)).
sleep.
:- end_object.
If we ask an entity (object) about a predicate that it doesn't define, the query will simply fail. For example (using SWI-Prolog as backend here but you can use most Prolog systems; assuming the code above is saved in a code.lgt file):
$ swilgt
...
?- {code}.
...
?- lucy::eat.
false.
If we want to find all objects that satisfy e.g. the sleep/0 predicate:
?- findall(Object,
(current_object(Object),
conforms_to_protocol(Object, predicates),
Object::sleep),
Objects).
Objects = [john, lucy].
If we want to query all predicates satisfied by the objects (here with the simplifying assumption that all those predicates have zero arity):
?- setof(
Name,
Arity^(current_object(Object),
conforms_to_protocol(Object, predicates),
Object::current_predicate(Name/Arity),
Object::Name),
Predicates
).
Object = john,
Predicates = [breathe, live, rest, sleep, snore] ;
Object = lucy,
Predicates = [live, rest, sleep].
But, at least for the most common queries, handy predicate definitions would preferably be added to the generic category.
P.S. For more on the closed-world assumption and predicate semantics and also why Prolog modules fail to provide a sensible alternative solution see e.g. https://logtalk.org/2019/09/30/predicate-semantics.html

prolog finding cardinality of a list

I have written a Prolog code to find the cardinality of a list ie number of distinct elements. It gives correct output but it runs multiple times and I cant seem to get my head around it. I have used the debugger but cant understand whats wrong
member(A, [A|_]).
member(A, [_|L]) :- member(A, L).
crdnlty([],0).
crdnlty([A|R],N) :-
(
\+ member(A, R),
crdnlty(R, N1),
N is N1+1
);
(
member(A, R),
crdnlty(R, N)
).
member checks if A is present in the remaining list.
if its not present ie it is the last occurrence of that element cardinality is increased by 1.
for example if i run the query
crdnlty([1,2,1,1], N).
it returns
N = 2 ;
N = 2 ;
false.
but it should return
N = 2 ;
false.
This is not answer but just a testing suggestion that doesn't fit in a comment.
Besides the unwanted duplicated solution, there's also the question on how to test the predicate. A simple alternative solution is to use the ISO Prolog standard predicate sort/2 and the de facto standard predicate length/2. The alternative solution could be:
cardinality(List, Cardinality) :-
sort(List, Sorted),
length(Sorted, Cardinality).
We can use this alternative solution to define a property that your solution must comply with that allows to QuickCheck your solution (ignoring for now the unwanted non-determinism):
property(List) :-
once(crdnlty(List, C)),
sort(List, S),
length(S, C).
Using the QuickCheck implementation provided by Logtalk's lgtunit tool (which you can run in most Prolog systems; in this example I will be using GNU Prolog):
$ gplgt
...
| ?- {lgtunit(loader)}.
...
% (0 warnings)
(578 ms) yes
| ?- lgtunit::quick_check(property(+list(integer)), [n(2000)]).
% 2000 random tests passed
(1589 ms) yes
Of course, QuickCheck can show bugs but cannot prove their absence. That said, a distinctive feature of Logtalk's QuickCheck implementation is that it tries trivial/corner cases for the specified types before generating random values. This help in ensuring that the random testing will not miss obvious test cases (as we illustrate next).
What happens if we test instead the solution provided by Scott Hunter?
| ?- lgtunit::quick_check(property(+list(integer)), [n(2000)]).
* quick check test failure (at test 1 after 0 shrinks):
* property([])
no
In fact, his solution doesn't take into account that the list may be empty. Assuming that's considered a bug, adding the missing clause:
crdnlty([], 0).
Re-testing:
| ?- lgtunit::quick_check(property(+list(integer)), [n(2000)]).
% 2000 random tests passed
(1509 ms) yes
It might be better to build a list of distinct elements & yield its length for the cardinality:
crdnlty([A|R],N) :- distinct(R,N,[A],1).
% distinct(L,N,DL,DN): There are N distinct values in list L+DL,
% assuming there are DN distinct values in list DL alone.
distinct([],N,_,N).
distinct([A|R],N,DL,DN) :-
(
\+ member(A, DL),
DN1 is DN+1,
distinct(R, N, [A|DL], DN1)
);
(
member(A, DL),
distinct(R, N, DL, DN)
).

How to make a list of pairs from facts in SWI-Prolog?

Assuming I have some facts like the following
person(jessica,19,usa).
person(james,18,uk).
person(eric,34,italy).
person(jake,24,france).
how can I create a predicate that creates a large list of pairs of all the names and their corresponding country like so:
?-filter(L).
L=[(jessica,usa),(james,uk),(eric,italy),(jake,france)]
The best solution is this one:
?- bagof((P,C), Age^person(P,Age,C), People).
People = [(jessica, usa), (james, uk), (eric, italy), (jake, france)].
This gives you the same result as findall/3, because findall/3 implicitly assumes existential quantification on all variables not present in the template ((P,C) is the template). In your case you only have one, the age variable. Notice what happens if you don't include that:
?- bagof((P,C), person(P,_,C), People).
People = [(james, uk)] ;
People = [(jessica, usa)] ;
People = [(jake, france)] ;
People = [(eric, italy)].
What happened here? The value of the second parameter was the same across each solution because we didn't inform bagof/3 that we didn't care what it was bound to or even if it was bound to just one thing. This property of bagof/3 and setof/3 (but not findall/3) sometimes turns out to be surprisingly useful, so I tend to prefer using bagof/3 over findall/3 if I only need to mark a variable or two.
It's more obvious if we add another person the same age to the database:
person(janet,18,australia).
?- bagof((P,C), person(P,Age,C), People).
Age = 18,
People = [(james, uk), (janet, australia)] .
?- bagof((P,C), person(P,_,C), People).
People = [(james, uk), (janet, australia)] ;
Assuming person/3 is ground and terminates, you can implement it without setof as:
notin(_, []).
notin(X, [Y|Ys]) :-
dif(X,Y),
notin(X,Ys).
lt_list(_, []).
lt_list(X, [Y|Ys]) :-
X #< Y,
lt_list(X,Ys).
f( [ Name-Location | Rest], Acc) :-
person(Name, _, Location),
lt_list( Name-Location, Acc ),
f(Rest, [Name-Location | Acc]).
f( [], Acc) :-
\+ (person(Name,_,Location), notin(Name-Location,Acc)).
When we query f, we get our solutions:
?- f(Xs,[]).
Xs = [jessica-usa, james-uk, jake-france, eric-italy] ;
false.
I used X-Y instead of (X,Y) for better readability. The predicate notin describes an element that is not contained in a list and lt_list describes an element that is smaller than anything in the list by the standard term order.
The idea is that the first rule generates persons that I have not seen yet. Using the term order makes sure that we don't generate all permutations of the list (try replacing lt_list by notin to see what happens). The second rule makes sure we only terminate if there are no more solutions to generate. Be aware that the rule contains negation, which can have some unwanted side-effects. Most of them are filtered out by only looking at ground terms, but I have not thought well, how bad the impact is in this solution.

Counter-intuitive behavior of min_member/2

min_member(-Min, +List)
True when Min is the smallest member in the standard order of terms. Fails if List is empty.
?- min_member(3, [1,2,X]).
X = 3.
The explanation is of course that variables come before all other terms in the standard order of terms, and unification is used. However, the reported solution feels somehow wrong.
How can it be justified? How should I interpret this solution?
EDIT:
One way to prevent min_member/2 from succeeding with this solution is to change the standard library (SWI-Prolog) implementation as follows:
xmin_member(Min, [H|T]) :-
xmin_member_(T, H, Min).
xmin_member_([], Min0, Min) :-
( var(Min0), nonvar(Min)
-> fail
; Min = Min0
).
xmin_member_([H|T], Min0, Min) :-
( H #>= Min0
-> xmin_member_(T, Min0, Min)
; xmin_member_(T, H, Min)
).
The rationale behind failing instead of throwing an instantiation error (what #mat suggests in his answer, if I understood correctly) is that this is a clear question:
"Is 3 the minimum member of [1,2,X], when X is a free variable?"
and the answer to this is (to me at least) a clear "No", rather than "I can't really tell."
This is the same class of behavior as sort/2:
?- sort([A,B,C], [3,1,2]).
A = 3,
B = 1,
C = 2.
And the same tricks apply:
?- min_member(3, [1,2,A,B]).
A = 3.
?- var(B), min_member(3, [1,2,A,B]).
B = 3.
The actual source of confusion is a common problem with general Prolog code. There is no clean, generally accepted classification of the kind of purity or impurity of a Prolog predicate. In a manual, and similarly in the standard, pure and impure built-ins are happily mixed together. For this reason, things are often confused, and talking about what should be the case and what not, often leads to unfruitful discussions.
How can it be justified? How should I interpret this solution?
First, look at the "mode declaration" or "mode indicator":
min_member(-Min, +List)
In the SWI documentation, this describes the way how a programmer shall use this predicate. Thus, the first argument should be uninstantiated (and probably also unaliased within the goal), the second argument should be instantiated to a list of some sort. For all other uses you are on your own. The system assumes that you are able to check that for yourself. Are you really able to do so? I, for my part, have quite some difficulties with this. ISO has a different system which also originates in DEC10.
Further, the implementation tries to be "reasonable" for unspecified cases. In particular, it tries to be steadfast in the first argument. So the minimum is first computed independently of the value of Min. Then, the resulting value is unified with Min. This robustness against misuses comes often at a price. In this case, min_member/2 always has to visit the entire list. No matter if this is useful or not. Consider
?- length(L, 1000000), maplist(=(1),L), min_member(2, L).
Clearly, 2 is not the minimum of L. This could be detected by considering the first element of the list only. Due to the generality of the definition, the entire list has to be visited.
This way of handling output unification is similarly handled in the standard. You can spot those cases when the (otherwise) declarative description (which is the first of a built-in) explicitly refers to unification, like
8.5.4 copy_term/2
8.5.4.1 Description
copy_term(Term_1, Term_2) is true iff Term_2 unifies
with a term T which is a renamed copy (7.1.6.2) of
Term_1.
or
8.4.3 sort/2
8.4.3.1 Description
sort(List, Sorted) is true iff Sorted unifies with
the sorted list of List (7.1.6.5).
Here are those arguments (in brackets) of built-ins that can only be understood as being output arguments. Note that there are many more which effectively are output arguments, but that do not need the process of unification after some operation. Think of 8.5.2 arg/3 (3) or 8.2.1 (=)/2 (2) or (1).
8.5.4 1 copy_term/2 (2),
8.4.2 compare/3 (1),
8.4.3 sort/2 (2),
8.4.4 keysort/2 (2),
8.10.1 findall/3 (3),
8.10.2 bagof/3 (3),
8.10.3 setof/3 (3).
So much for your direct questions, there are some more fundamental problems behind:
Term order
Historically, "standard" term order1 has been defined to permit the definition of setof/3 and sort/2 about 1982. (Prior to it, as in 1978, it was not mentioned in the DEC10 manual user's guide.)
From 1982 on, term order was frequently (erm, ab-) used to implement other orders, particularly, because DEC10 did not offer higher-order predicates directly. call/N was to be invented two years later (1984) ; but needed some more decades to be generally accepted. It is for this reason that Prolog programmers have a somewhat nonchalant attitude towards sorting. Often they intend to sort terms of a certain kind, but prefer to use sort/2 for this purpose — without any additional error checking. A further reason for this was the excellent performance of sort/2 beating various "efficient" libraries in other programming languages decades later (I believe STL had a bug to this end, too). Also the complete magic in the code - I remember one variable was named Omniumgatherum - did not invite copying and modifying the code.
Term order has two problems: variables (which can be further instantiated to invalidate the current ordering) and infinite terms. Both are handled in current implementations without producing an error, but with still undefined results. Yet, programmers assume that everything will work out. Ideally, there would be comparison predicates that produce
instantiation errors for unclear cases like this suggestion. And another error for incomparable infinite terms.
Both SICStus and SWI have min_member/2, but only SICStus has min_member/3 with an additional argument to specify the order employed. So the goal
?- min_member(=<, M, Ms).
behaves more to your expectations, but only for numbers (plus arithmetic expressions).
Footnotes:
1 I quote standard, in standard term order, for this notion existed since about 1982 whereas the standard was published 1995.
Clearly min_member/2 is not a true relation:
?- min_member(X, [X,0]), X = 1.
X = 1.
yet, after simply exchanging the two goals by (highly desirable) commutativity of conjunction, we get:
?- X = 1, min_member(X, [X,0]).
false.
This is clearly quite bad, as you correctly observe.
Constraints are a declarative solution for such problems. In the case of integers, finite domain constraints are a completely declarative solution for such problems.
Without constraints, it is best to throw an instantiation error when we know too little to give a sound answer.
This is a common property of many (all?) predicates that depend on the standard order of terms, while the order between two terms can change after unification. Baseline is the conjunction below, which cannot be reverted either:
?- X #< 2, X = 3.
X = 3.
Most predicates using a -Value annotation for an argument say that pred(Value) is the same
as pred(Var), Value = Var. Here is another example:
?- sort([2,X], [3,2]).
X = 3.
These predicates only represent clean relations if the input is ground. It is too much to demand the input to be ground though because they can be meaningfully used with variables, as long as the user is aware that s/he should not further instantiate any of the ordered terms. In that sense, I disagree with #mat. I do agree that constraints can surely make some of these relations sound.
This is how min_member/2 is implemented:
min_member(Min, [H|T]) :-
min_member_(T, H, Min).
min_member_([], Min, Min).
min_member_([H|T], Min0, Min) :-
( H #>= Min0
-> min_member_(T, Min0, Min)
; min_member_(T, H, Min)
).
So it seems that min_member/2 actually tries to unify Min (the first argument) with the smallest element in List in the standard order of terms.
I hope I am not off-topic with this third answer. I did not edit one of the previous two as I think it's a totally different idea. I was wondering if this undesired behaviour:
?- min_member(X, [A, B]), A = 3, B = 2.
X = A, A = 3,
B = 2.
can be avoided if some conditions can be postponed for the moment when A and B get instantiated.
promise_relation(Rel_2, X, Y):-
call(Rel_2, X, Y),
when(ground(X), call(Rel_2, X, Y)),
when(ground(Y), call(Rel_2, X, Y)).
min_member_1(Min, Lst):-
member(Min, Lst),
maplist(promise_relation(#=<, Min), Lst).
What I want from min_member_1(?Min, ?Lst) is to expresses a relation that says Min will always be lower (in the standard order of terms) than any of the elements in Lst.
?- min_member_1(X, L), L = [_,2,3,4], X = 1.
X = 1,
L = [1, 2, 3, 4] .
If variables get instantiated at a later time, the order in which they get bound becomes important as a comparison between a free variable and an instantiated one might be made.
?- min_member_1(X, [A,B,C]), B is 3, C is 4, A is 1.
X = A, A = 1,
B = 3,
C = 4 ;
false.
?- min_member_1(X, [A,B,C]), A is 1, B is 3, C is 4.
false.
But this can be avoided by unifying all of them in the same goal:
?- min_member_1(X, [A,B,C]), [A, B, C] = [1, 3, 4].
X = A, A = 1,
B = 3,
C = 4 ;
false.
Versions
If the comparisons are intended only for instantiated variables, promise_relation/3 can be changed to check the relation only when both variables get instantiated:
promise_relation(Rel_2, X, Y):-
when((ground(X), ground(Y)), call(Rel_2, X, Y)).
A simple test:
?- L = [_, _, _, _], min_member_1(X, L), L = [3,4,1,2].
L = [3, 4, 1, 2],
X = 1 ;
false.
! Edits were made to improve the initial post thanks to false's comments and suggestions.
I have an observation regarding your xmin_member implementation. It fails on this query:
?- xmin_member(1, [X, 2, 3]).
false.
I tried to include the case when the list might include free variables. So, I came up with this:
ymin_member(Min, Lst):-
member(Min, Lst),
maplist(#=<(Min), Lst).
Of course it's worse in terms of efficiency, but it works on that case:
?- ymin_member(1, [X, 2, 3]).
X = 1 ;
false.
?- ymin_member(X, [X, 2, 3]).
true ;
X = 2 ;
false.

Does any version of Prolog support higher order abstraction of accumulators?

I was wondering about a Prolog that could include a built-in call like this:
accum(generator, filter, accumulator)
Calculates all solutions to generator.
For each one, if filter can be proved, accumulator is proved.
Backtracks to find all solutions to filter and generator.
Accumulator may backtrack internally, but multiple proofs of accumulator are
conjoined, not backtracked.
So, for example, to sum a list without using recursion you could write:
X is 0, accum(member(Val,List), True, X is X + Val).
Is there any Prolog with this construct or an equivalent? Bear in mind that I am a bit of a newbie at Prolog and may be missing something obvious.
SWI-Prolog library(aggregate) has a powerful interface, for instance
aggregate_all(sum(Val), member(Val,List), Sum)
the (apparently simple) sharing of the variables among aggregation and generation is obtained with a predicate, foreach/2, that could interest you.
In SWI-Prolog you can do ?- edit(library(aggregate)). to study the internals...
library(aggregate) is relatively inefficient, but coupled with SWI-Prolog nb_ (non backtrackable) data structures should do its job very well...
About non backtrackable data structures: here is an example of my 'self built' accumulator, implemented by means of nb_setarg/3.
I assume you mean without explicit recursion? If so, you can use an implementation of the high-order predicate list fold left, together with a lambda expression to avoid the need of an auxiliary predicate. Using Logtalk as an example you can write:
?- Sum0 is 0, meta::fold_left([X,Y,Z]>>(Z is Y+X), Sum0, [1,2,3], Sum).
Sum0 = 0,
Sum = 6.
Logtalk can use as a backend compiler most Prolog implementations (http://logtalk.org/). You can also use Ulrich's lambda library (http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/ulrich/Prolog-inedit/ISO-Hiord.html) with a supported Prolog compiler together with a Prolog library providing the fold left predicate for the same result. Using now YAP as an example:
$ yap
...
?- use_module(library(lambda)).
...
?- use_module(library(maplist)).
...
?- Sum0 is 0, foldl(\X^Y^Z^(Z is Y+X), [1,2,3], Sum0, Sum).
Sum = 6,
Sum0 = 0.
Briefly, the fold left predicate iterates over a list, recursively applying the closure in its first argument to a list element and the accumulator, returning the final accumulator value.
In Mercury's standard library the "solutions" module provides functionality like this.
Note that X is X + Val does not assign a new value to X. It is a statement that is true if Val is zero, and false if it is any other number, which is probably not what you mean. Accumulators like this are typically expressed as a relation between the initial and final value.
In Mercury, your example could be written as:
:- import_module solutions.
...
sumlist(List, Sum) :-
Generator = (pred(Val::out) is nondet :- member(Val, List), true),
Accumulator = (pred(X::in, Y::in, Z::out) is det :- Z = X + Y),
aggregate(Generator, Accumulator, 0, Sum).
There is no need for a separate filter argument, as it can be included as part of the generator.

Resources