No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Relating Two Dialects of Answer Set Programming
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 September 2019
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.
The input language of the answer set solver clingo is based on the definition of a stable model proposed by Paolo Ferraris. The semantics of the ASP-Core language, developed by the ASP Standardization Working Group, uses the approach to stable models due to Wolfgang Faber, Nicola Leone, and Gerald Pfeifer. The two languages are based on different versions of the stable model semantics, and the ASP-Core document requires, “for the sake of an uncontroversial semantics,” that programs avoid the use of recursion through aggregates. In this paper we prove that the absence of recursion through aggregates does indeed guarantee the equivalence between the two versions of the stable model semantics, and show how that requirement can be relaxed without violating the equivalence property.
Information
- Type
- Original Article
- Information
- Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 19 , Special Issue 5-6: 35th International Conference on Logic Programming , September 2019 , pp. 1006 - 1020
- Copyright
- © Cambridge University Press 2019
References
Bartholomew, M., Lee, J., and Meng, Y. 2011. First-order extension of the FLP stable model semantics via modified circumscription. In Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). 724–730.Google Scholar
Faber, W., Leone, N., and Pfeifer, G. 2004. Recursive aggregates in disjunctive logic programs: Semantics and complexity. In Proceedings of European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA). 200–212.Google Scholar
Faber, W., Pfeifer, G., and Leone, N. 2011. Semantics and complexity of recursive aggregates in answer set programming. Artificial Intelligence 175, 278–298.Google Scholar
Ferraris, P. 2005. Answer sets for propositional theories. In Proceedings of International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR). 119–131.Google Scholar
Ferraris, P., Lee, J., and Lifschitz, V. 2006. A generalization of the Lin-Zhao theorem. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 47, 79–101.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Harrison, A., Kaminski, R., Lifschitz, V., and Schaub, T. 2015. Abstract Gringo. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 15, 449–463.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Zhang, Y. 2014. Vicious circle principle and logic programs with aggregates. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 14, 4-5, 587–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, A. 2017. Formal methods for answer set programming. Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Harrison, A., Lifschitz, V., Pearce, D., and Valverde, A. 2017. Infinitary equilibrium logic and strongly equivalent logic programs. Arificial Intelligence 246, 22–33.Google Scholar
Heyting, A. 1930. Die formalen Regeln der intuitionistischen Logik. Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie von Wissenschaften. Physikalisch-mathematische Klasse, 42–56.Google Scholar
Truszczynski, M. 2010. Reducts of propositional theories, satisfiability relations, and generalizations of semantics of logic programs. Artificial Intelligence 174, 16, 1285–1306.Google Scholar
Truszczynski, M. 2012. Connecting first-order ASP and the logic FO(ID) through reducts. In Correct Reasoning: Essays on Logic-Based AI in Honor of Vladimir Lifschitz, Erdem, E., Lee, J., Lierler, Y.
, and Pearce, D., Eds. Springer, 543–559.Google Scholar
You have
Access
- 2
- Cited by