No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Temporal logic programs with variables*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 November 2016
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.
In this note, we consider the problem of introducing variables in temporal logic programs under the formalism of Temporal Equilibrium Logic, an extension of Answer Set Programming for dealing with linear-time modal operators. To this aim, we provide a definition of a first-order version of Temporal Equilibrium Logic that shares the syntax of first-order Linear-time Temporal Logic but has different semantics, selecting some Linear-time Temporal Logic models we call temporal stable models. Then, we consider a subclass of theories (called splittable temporal logic programs) that are close to usual logic programs but allowing a restricted use of temporal operators. In this setting, we provide a syntactic definition of safe variables that suffices to show the property of domain independence – that is, addition of arbitrary elements in the universe does not vary the set of temporal stable models. Finally, we present a method for computing the derivable facts by constructing a non-temporal logic program with variables that is fed to a standard Answer Set Programming grounder. The information provided by the grounder is then used to generate a subset of ground temporal rules which is equivalent to (and generally smaller than) the full program instantiation.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Technical Note
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016
Footnotes
*
This research was partially supported by Spanish MINECO project TIN2013-42149-P and Xunta de Galicia GPC 2013/070.
References
Aguado, F., Cabalar, P., Pérez, G. and Vidal, C.
2008. Strongly equivalent temporal logic programs. In JELIA'08, Hölldobler, S., Lutz, C. and Wansing, H., Eds. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5293. Springer, 8–20.Google Scholar
Aguado, F., Cabalar, P., Pérez, G. and Vidal, C.
2011. Loop formulas for splitable temporal logic programs. In LPNMR'11, Delgrande, J. P. and Faber, W., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6645. Springer, 80–92.Google Scholar
Bozzelli, L. and Pearce, D.
2015. On the complexity of temporal equilibrium logic. In Proc. of the 30th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, (LICS'15). IEEE Computer Society, 645–656.Google Scholar
Bria, A., Faber, W. and Leone, N.
2008. Normal form nested programs. In Proc. of the 11th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA'08), S. H. et al, Eds. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabalar, P. and Diéguez, M.
2011. STELP - a tool for temporal answer set programming. In LPNMR'11, Delgrande, J. and Faber, W., Eds. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6645. Springer, 370–375.Google Scholar
Cabalar, P., Pearce, D. and Valverde, A.
2009. A revised concept of safety for general answer set programs. In Proc. of the 10th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'09). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5753. Springer, 58–70.Google Scholar
Calimeri, F., Faber, W., Gebser, M., Ianni, G., Kaminski, R., Krennwallner, T., Leone, N., Ricca, F. and Schaub, T.
2015. ASP-core-2 input language format. Accessed 12 October 2016. URL: https://www.mat.unical.it/aspcomp2013/files/ASP-CORE-2.03c.pdf.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., König, A. and Schaub, T.
2011. Advances in gringo series 3. In Proc. of the 11th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'11), Delgrande, J. P. and Faber, W., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6645. Springer, 345–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V.
1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Logic Programming: Proc. of the 7th International Conference and Symposium, Kowalski, R. A. and Bowen, K. A., Eds., vol. 2. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1070–1080.Google Scholar
Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S. and Scarcello, F.
2006. The dlv system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic
7, 499–562.Google Scholar
Marek, V. and Truszczyński, M.
1999. Stable Models and an Alternative Logic Programming Paradigm. Springer-Verlag, 169–181.Google Scholar
Niemelä, I.
1999. Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
25, 241–273.Google Scholar
Pearce, D.
1996. A new logical characterisation of stable models and answer sets. In Proc. of the 2nd International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Extensions of Logic Programming (NMELP'96), Dix, J., Pereira, L. M. and Przymusinski, T. C., Eds. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1216. Springer-Verlag, 1997, 57–60.Google Scholar
Pearce, D.
2006. Equilibrium logic. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
47
(1–2), 3–41.Google Scholar
Pnueli, A.
1977. The temporal logic of programs. In Proc. 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, 46–57.Google Scholar
van Emden, M. H. and Kowalski, R. A.
1976. The semantics of predicate logic as a programming language. Journal of the ACM
23, 733–742.Google Scholar
You have
Access
- 4
- Cited by