[go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

Beyond Uniform Equivalence between Answer-set Programs

Published: 02 December 2020 Publication History

Abstract

This article deals with advanced notions of equivalence between nonmonotonic logic programs under the answer-set semantics, a topic of considerable interest, because such notions form the basis for program verification and are useful for program optimisation, debugging, and modular programming. In fact, there is extensive research in answer-set programming (ASP) dealing with different notions of equivalence between programs. Prominent among these notions is uniform equivalence, which checks whether two programs have the same semantics when joined with an arbitrary set of facts. In this article, we study a family of more fine-grained versions of uniform equivalence, viz. relativised uniform equivalence with projection, which extends standard uniform equivalence in terms of two additional parameters: one for specifying the input alphabet and one for specifying the output alphabet for programs. In particular, the second parameter is used for projecting answer sets to a set of designated output atoms. Answer-set projection, in particular, allows to compare programs that make use of different auxiliary atoms, which is important for practical programming aspects. We introduce novel semantic characterisations for the program correspondence problems under consideration and analyse their computational complexity. In the general case, deciding these problems lies on the third level of the polynomial hierarchy. Therefore, this task cannot be efficiently reduced to propositional answer-set programs itself (under the usual complexity-theoretic assumptions). However, reductions to quantified Boolean formulas (QBFs) are feasible. Indeed, we provide efficient (in fact, linear-time constructible) reductions to QBFs and discuss simplifications for certain special cases. These QBF reductions yield the basis for a prototype implementation, the system cc ⊤, for deciding correspondence problems by using off-the-shelf QBF solvers. We discuss an application of cc ⊤ for verifying the correctness of solutions by students drawn from a laboratory course on logic programming and knowledge representation at the Technische Universität Wien, employing relativised uniform equivalence with projection as the underlying program correspondence notion.

References

[1]
Mario Alviano, Wolfgang Faber, and Stefan Woltran. 2014. Complexity of super-coherence problems in ASP. Theory Practice Logic Program. 14, 3 (2014), 339--361.
[2]
Ofer Arieli. 2004. Paraconsistent preferential reasoning by signed quantified Boolean formulae. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’04) (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications), Ramon López de Mántaras and Lorenza Saitta (Ed.), Vol. 110. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 773--777.
[3]
Ofer Arieli and Martin W. Ã. Caminada. 2012. A general QBF-based formalization of abstract argumentation theory. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA’12) (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications), Bart Verheij, Stefan Szeider, and Stefan Woltran (Eds.), Vol. 245. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 105--116.
[4]
Ofer Arieli and Marc Denecker. 2003. Reducing preferential paraconsistent reasoning to classical entailment. J. Logic Comput. 13, 4 (2003), 557--580.
[5]
Chitta Baral. 2003. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
[6]
Chitta Baral and Michael L. Fredman. 2000. Reasoning agents in dynamic domains. In Logic-based Artificial Intelligence, Jack Minker (Ed.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 257--279.
[7]
Marco Benedetti. 2005. Extracting certificates from quantified boolean formulas. In Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’05), Leslie Pack Kaelbling and Alessandro Saffiotti (Eds.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA, 47--53.
[8]
Marco Benedetti. 2005. sKizzo: A suite to evaluate and certify QBFs. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE’20) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Robert Nieuwenhuis (Ed.), Vol. 3632. Springer, Berlin, 369--376.
[9]
Philippe Besnard, Anthony Hunter, and Stefan Woltran. 2009. Encoding deductive argumentation in quantified Boolean formulae. Artific. Intell. 173, 15 (2009), 1406--1423.
[10]
Philippe Besnard, Torsten Schaub, Hans Tompits, and Stefan Woltran. 2005. Representing paraconsistent reasoning via quantified propositional logic. In Inconsistency Tolerance (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Leopoldo E. Bertossi, Anthony Hunter, and Torsten Schaub (Eds.), Vol. 3300. Springer, Berlin, 84--118.
[11]
Bernhard Bliem and Stefan Woltran. 2018. Equivalence between answer-set programs under (partially) fixed input. Ann. Math. Artific. Intell. 83, 3--4 (2018), 277--295.
[12]
Martin Brain, Tom Crick, Marina De Vos, and John Fitch. 2006. TOAST: Applying answer set programming to superoptimisation. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP’06) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Sandro Etalle and Mirosław Truszczyński (Eds.), Vol. 4079. Springer, Berlin, 270--284.
[13]
Daniel R. Brooks, Esra Erdem, Selim T. Erdogan, James W. Minett, and Donald Ringe. 2007. Inferring phylogenetic trees using answer set programming. J. Autom. Reason. 39, 4 (2007), 471--511.
[14]
Yin Chen, Fangzhen Lin, and Lei Li. 2005. SELP - A system for studying strong equivalence between logic programs. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’05) (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence), Chitta Baral, Gianluigi Greco, Nicola Leone, and Giorgio Terracina (Eds.), Vol. 3552. Springer, Berlin, 442--446.
[15]
James P. Delgrande, Torsten Schaub, Hans Tompits, and Stefan Woltran. 2004. On computing belief change operations using quantified Boolean formulas. J. Logic Comput. 14, 6 (2004), 801--826.
[16]
James P. Delgrande, Torsten Schaub, Hans Tompits, and Stefan Woltran. 2008. Belief revision of logic programs under answer set semantics. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’08), Gerhard Brewka and Jérôme Lang (Eds.). AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 411--421.
[17]
Uwe Egly, Thomas Eiter, Hans Tompits, and Stefan Woltran. 2000. Solving advanced reasoning tasks using quantified Boolean formulas. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’00) and of the 12th Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI’00), Henry A. Kautz and Bruce W. Porter (Eds.). AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 417--422.
[18]
Uwe Egly, Martina Seidl, Hans Tompits, Stefan Woltran, and Michael Zolda. 2004. Comparing different prenexing strategies for quantified Boolean formulas. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT’03), Selected Revised Papers (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Enrico Giunchiglia and Armando Tacchella (Eds.), Vol. 2919. Springer, Berlin, 214--228.
[19]
Uwe Egly, Martina Seidl, and Stefan Woltran. 2006. A solver for QBFs in nonprenex form. In Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’06) (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications), Gerhard Brewka, Silvia Coradeschi, Anna Perini, and Paolo Traverso (Eds.), Vol. 141. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 477--481.
[20]
Uwe Egly, Martina Seidl, and Stefan Woltran. 2009. A solver for QBFs in negation normal form. Constraints 14, 1 (2009), 38--79.
[21]
Thomas Eiter, Wolfgang Faber, Nicola Leone, and Gerald Pfeifer. 1999. The diagnosis frontend of the DLV system. AI Commun. 12, 1--2 (1999), 99--111.
[22]
Thomas Eiter, Wolfgang Faber, Nicola Leone, Gerald Pfeifer, and Axel Polleres. 2000. Planning under incomplete knowledge. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computational Logic (CL’00) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), John W. Lloyd, Verónica Dahl, Ulrich Furbach, Manfred Kerber, Kung-Kiu Lau, Catuscia Palamidessi, Luís Moniz Pereira, Yehoshua Sagiv, and Peter J. Stuckey (Eds.), Vol. 1861. Springer, Berlin, 807--821.
[23]
Thomas Eiter, Wolfgang Faber, and Patrick Traxler. 2005. Testing strong equivalence of Datalog programs - Implementation and examples. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’05) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Chitta Baral, Gianluigi Greco, Nicola Leone, and Giorgio Terracina (Eds.), Vol. 3662. Springer, Berlin, 437--441.
[24]
Thomas Eiter and Michael Fink. 2003. Uniform equivalence of logic programs under the stable model semantics. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP’03) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Catuscia Palamidessi (Ed.), Vol. 2916. Springer, Berlin, 224--238.
[25]
Thomas Eiter, Michael Fink, Jörg Pührer, Hans Tompits, and Stefan Woltran. 2013. Model-based recasting in answer-set programming. J. Appl. Non-Class. Logics 23, 1--2 (2013), 75--104.
[26]
Thomas Eiter, Michael Fink, Hans Tompits, and Stefan Woltran. 2004. Simplifying logic programs under uniform and strong equivalence. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’04) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vladimir Lifschitz and Ilkka Niemelä (Eds.), Vol. 2923. Springer, Berlin, 87--99.
[27]
Thomas Eiter, Michael Fink, Hans Tompits, and Stefan Woltran. 2005. Strong and uniform equivalence in answer-set programming: Characterizations and complexity results for the non-ground case. In Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’05), Manuela M. Veloso and Subbarao Kambhampati (Eds.). AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 695--700.
[28]
Thomas Eiter, Michael Fink, and Stefan Woltran. 2007. Semantical characterizations and complexity of equivalences in answer set programming. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 8, 3, Article 17 (2007), 53 pages.
[29]
Thomas Eiter and Georg Gottlob. 1995. On the computational cost of disjunctive logic programming: Propositional case. Ann. Math. Artific. Intell. 15, 3/4 (1995), 289--323.
[30]
Thomas Eiter, Hans Tompits, and Stefan Woltran. 2005. On solution correspondences in answer set programming. In Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’05), Leslie Pack Kaelbling and Alessandro Saffiotti (Eds.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, CA, 97--102.
[31]
Esra Erdem, Vladimir Lifschitz, and Donald Ringe. 2006. Temporal phylogenetic networks and logic programming. Theory Practice Logic Program. 6, 5 (2006), 539--558.
[32]
Michael Fink. 2011. A general framework for equivalences in answer-set programming by countermodels in the logic of here-and-there. Theory Practice Logic Program. 11, 2--3 (2011), 171--202.
[33]
Martin Gebser, Roland Kaminski, Benjamin Kaufmann, and Torsten Schaub. 2012. Answer Set Solving in Practice. Morgan 8 Claypool Publishers, San Rafael, CA.
[34]
Martin Gebser, Benjamin Kaufmann, André Neumann, and Torsten Schaub. 2007. Conflict-driven answer set solving. In Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’07), Manuela M. Veloso (Ed.). AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, CA, Cambridge, MA, 386--392.
[35]
Tobias Geibinger and Hans Tompits. 2019. Characterising relativised strong equivalence with projection for non-ground answer-set programs. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA’19) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Francesco Calimeri, Nicola Leone, and Marco Manna (Eds.), Vol. 11468. Springer, Berlin, 542--558.
[36]
Michael Gelfond and Yulia Kahl. 2014. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and the Design of Intelligent Agents: The Answer-Set Programming Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
[37]
Michael Gelfond and Vladimir Lifschitz. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Gen. Comput. 9 (1991), 365--385.
[38]
Enrico Giunchiglia, Massimo Narizzano, Luca Pulina, and Armando Tacchella. 2005. Quantified Boolean Formulas Satisfiability Library (QBFLIB). Retrieved from www.qbflib.org.
[39]
Ricardo Gonçalves, Tomi Janhunen, Matthias Knorr, João Leite, and Stefan Woltran. 2019. Forgetting in modular answer set programming. In Proceedings of the 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’19), Pascal Van Hentenryck and Zhi-Hua Zhou (Eds.). AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 2843--2850.
[40]
Ricardo Gonçalves, Matthias Knorr, and João Leite. 2016. You can’t always forget what you want: On the limits of forgetting in answer set programming. In Proceedings of the 22nd European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’16) (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications), Gal A. Kaminka, Maria Fox, Paolo Bouquet, Eyke Hüllermeier, Virginia Dignum, Frank Dignum, and Frank van Harmelen (Eds.), Vol. 285. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 957--965.
[41]
Susanne Grell, Torsten Schaub, and Joachim Selbig. 2006. Modelling biological networks by action languages via answer set programming. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP’06) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Sandro Etalle and Mirosław Truszczyński (Eds.), Vol. 4079. Springer, Berlin, 285--299.
[42]
Katsumi Inoue and Chiaki Sakama. 2004. Equivalence of logic programs under updates. In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA’04) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), José Júlio Alferes and João Alexandre Leite (Eds.), Vol. 3229. Springer, Berlin, 174--186.
[43]
Tomi Janhunen and Ilkka Niemelä. 2012. Applying visible strong equivalence in answer-set program transformations. In Correct Reasoning—Essays on Logic-Based AI in Honour of Vladimir Lifschitz (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Esra Erdem, Joohyung Lee, Yuliya Lierler, and David Pearce (Eds.), Vol. 7265. Springer, Berlin, 363--379.
[44]
Tomi Janhunen, Ilkka Niemelä, Johannes Oetsch, Jörg Pührer, and Hans Tompits. 2010. On testing answer-set programs. In Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’10) (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications), Helder Coelho, Rudi Studer, and Michael J. Wooldridge (Eds.), Vol. 215. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 951--956.
[45]
Tomi Janhunen, Ilkka Niemelä, Johannes Oetsch, Jörg Pührer, and Hans Tompits. 2011. Random vs. structure-based testing of answer-set programs: An experimental comparison. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’11) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), James P. Delgrande and Wolfgang Faber (Eds.), Vol. 6645. Springer, Berlin, 242--247.
[46]
Tomi Janhunen, Ilka Niemelä, Dietmar Seipel, and Patrik Simons. 2006. Unfolding partiality and disjunctions in stable model semantics. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 7, 1 (2006), 1--37.
[47]
Tomi Janhunen and Emilia Oikarinen. 2007. Automated verification of weak equivalence within the smodels system. Theory Practice Logic Program. 7, 4 (2007), 1--48.
[48]
Nicola Leone, Gerald Pfeifer, Wolfgang Faber, Thomas Eiter, Georg Gottlob, Simona Perri, and Francesco Scarcello. 2006. The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 7, 3 (2006), 499--562.
[49]
Vladimir Lifschitz, David Pearce, and Agustín Valverde. 2001. Strongly equivalent logic programs. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 2, 4 (2001), 526--541.
[50]
Vladimir Lifschitz and Hudson Turner. 1994. Splitting a logic program. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP’94), Pascal Van Hentenryck (Ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 23--37.
[51]
Fangzhen Lin. 2002. Reducing strong equivalence of logic programs to entailment in classical propositional logic. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’02), Dieter Fensel, Fausto Giunchiglia, Deborah L. McGuinness, and Mary-Anne Williams (Eds.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, CA, 170--176.
[52]
Fangzhen Lin and Yin Chen. 2007. Discovering classes of strongly equivalent logic programs. J. Artific. Intell. Res. 28 (2007), 431--451.
[53]
Guohua Liu, Randy Goebel, Tomi Janhunen, Ilkka Niemelä, and Jia-Huai You. 2011. Strong equivalence of logic programs with abstract constraint atoms. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’11) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), James P. Delgrande and Wolfgang Faber (Eds.), Vol. 6645. Springer, Berlin, 161--173.
[54]
Albert R. Meyer and Larry J. Stockmeyer. 1973. Word problems requiring exponential time: Preliminary report. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’73), Alfred V. Aho, Allan Borodin, Robert L. Constable, Robert W. Floyd, Michael A. Harrison, Richard M. Karp, and H. Raymond Strong (Eds.). ACM Press, New York, 1--9.
[55]
Massimo Narizzano, Claudia Peschiera, Luca Pulina, and Armando Tacchella. 2009. Evaluating and certifying QBFs: A comparison of state-of-the-art tools. AI Commun. 22, 4 (2009), 191--210.
[56]
Aina Niemetz, Mathias Preiner, Florian Lonsing, Martina Seidl, and Armin Biere. 2012. Resolution-based certificate extraction for QBF. In Proceeedings of the 15th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT’12) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Alessandro Cimatti and Roberto Sebastiani (Eds.), Vol. 7317. Springer, Berlin, 430--435.
[57]
Monica Nogueira, Marcello Balduccini, Michael Gelfond, Richard Watson, and Matthew Barry. 2001. An A-Prolog decision support system for the space shuttle. In Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium on Answer Set Programming: Towards Efficient and Scalable Knowledge, Alessandro Provetti and Tran Cao Son (Eds.). AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 139--145.
[58]
Johannes Oetsch, Martina Seidl, Hans Tompits, and Stefan Woltran. 2006. cc ⊤: A tool for checking advanced correspondence problems in answer-set programming. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computing (CIC’06), Alexander Gelbukh and Sergio Suárez Guerra (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 3--10.
[59]
Johannes Oetsch, Martina Seidl, Hans Tompits, and Stefan Woltran. 2009. cc ⊤ on stage: Generalised uniform equivalence testing for verifying student assignment solutions. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’09) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Esra Erdem, Fangzhen Lin, and Torsten Schaub (Eds.), Vol. 5753. Springer, Berlin, 382--395.
[60]
Johannes Oetsch and Hans Tompits. 2008. Program correspondence under the answer-set semantics: The non-ground case. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP’08) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Maria Garcia de la Banda and Enrico Pontelli (Eds.), Vol. 5366. Springer, Berlin, 591--605.
[61]
Johannes Oetsch, Hans Tompits, and Stefan Woltran. 2007. Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored: Relativised uniform equivalence with answer-set projection. In Proceedings of the 22nd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’07), Robert C. Holte and Adele Howe (Eds.). AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 458--464.
[62]
Emilia Oikarinen and Tomi Janhunen. 2004. Verifying the equivalence of logic programs in the disjunctive case. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’04) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vladimir Lifschitz and Ilkka Niemelä (Eds.), Vol. 2923. Springer, Berlin, 180--193.
[63]
Emilia Oikarinen and Tomi Janhunen. 2006. Modular equivalence for normal logic programs. In Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’06) (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications), Gerhard Brewka, Silvia Coradeschi, Anna Perini, and Paolo Traverso (Eds.), Vol. 141. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 412--416.
[64]
Christos H. Papadimitriou. 1994. Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley Publishing, Reading, MA.
[65]
David Pearce. 2004. Simplifying logic programs under answer set semantics. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP’04) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Bart Demoen and Vladimir Lifschitz (Eds.), Vol. 3132. Springer, Berlin, 210--224.
[66]
David Pearce, Hans Tompits, and Stefan Woltran. 2009. Characterising equilibrium logic and nested logic programs: Reductions and complexity. Theory Practice Logic Program. 9, 5 (2009), 565--616.
[67]
Axel Polleres. 2005. Semantic web languages and semantic web services as application areas for answer set programming. In Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints (Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings), Gerhard Brewka, Ilkka Niemelä, Torsten Schaub, and Mirosław Truszczyński (Eds.), Vol. 05171. Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany, Dagstuhl, Germany, Article 5, 6 pages. Retrieved from http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2005/263.
[68]
Jörg Pührer, Hans Tompits, and Stefan Woltran. 2008. Elimination of disjunction and negation in answer-set programs under hyperequivalence. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP’08) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Maria Garcia de la Banda and Enrico Pontelli (Eds.), Vol. 5366. Springer, Berlin, 561--575.
[69]
Raymond Reiter. 1987. A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artific. Intell. 32, 1 (1987), 57--95.
[70]
Jussi Rintanen. 1999. Constructing conditional plans by a theorem prover. J. Artific. Intell. Res. 10 (1999), 323--352.
[71]
Jussi Rintanen. 2007. Asymptotically optimal encodings of conformant planning in QBF. In Proceedings of the 22nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’07), Robert C. Holte and Adele Howe (Eds.). AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 1015--1050.
[72]
Yehoshua Sagiv. 1988. Optimizing Datalog programs. In Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, Jack Minker (Ed.). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 659--698.
[73]
Anatol Olesjewitsch Slisenko (Ed.). 1970. Studies in Constructive Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, Part II. Seminars in Mathematics, V. A. Steklov Mathematical Institute, Leningrad, Vol. 8. Consultants Bureau, New York.
[74]
Timo Soininen and Ilkka Niemelä. 1999. Developing a declarative rule language for applications in product configuration. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages (PADL ’99) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Gopal Gupta (Ed.), Vol. 1551. Springer, Berlin, 305--319.
[75]
Larry J. Stockmeyer. 1976. The polynomial-time hierarchy. Theor. Comput. Sci. 3, 1 (1976), 1--22. TCSCDI
[76]
Hans Tompits and Stefan Woltran. 2005. Towards implementations for advanced equivalence checking in answer-set programming. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP’05) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Maurizio Gabbrielli and Gopal Gupta (Eds.), Vol. 3668. Springer, Berlin, 189--203.
[77]
Mirosław Truszczyński. 2006. Strong and uniform equivalence of nonmonotonic theories—An algebraic approach. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’06), Patrick Doherty, John Mylopoulos, and Christopher A. Welty (Eds.). AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 389--399.
[78]
Mirosław Truszczyński and Stefan Woltran. 2009. Relativized hyperequivalence of logic programs for modular programming. Theory Practice Logic Program. 9, 6 (2009), 781--819.
[79]
Grigori S. Tseitin. 1968. O Slozhnosti Vyvoda v Ischislenii Vyskazyvanij. Zapiski Nauchnykh Seminarov LOMI 8 (1968), 234--259. English translation: [73, pp. 115--125].
[80]
Hudson Turner. 2003. Strong equivalence made easy: Nested expressions and weight constraints. Theory Practice Logic Program. 3, 4--5 (2003), 602--622.
[81]
Stefan Woltran. 2004. Characterizations for relativized notions of equivalence in answer set programming. In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA’04) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), José Júlio Alferes and João Alexandre Leite (Eds.), Vol. 3229. Springer, Berlin, 161--173.
[82]
Stefan Woltran. 2008. A common view on strong, uniform, and other notions of equivalence in answer-set programming. Theory Practice Logic Program. 8, 2 (2008), 217--234.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Rethinking Answer Set Programming TemplatesPractical Aspects of Declarative Languages10.1007/978-3-031-52038-9_6(82-99)Online publication date: 10-Jan-2024
  • (2022)Comparing the Reasoning Capabilities of Equilibrium Theories and Answer Set ProgramsAlgorithms10.3390/a1506020115:6(201)Online publication date: 8-Jun-2022
  • (2022)Arguing Correctness of ASP Programs with AggregatesLogic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning10.1007/978-3-031-15707-3_15(190-202)Online publication date: 5-Sep-2022

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computational Logic
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic  Volume 22, Issue 1
January 2021
262 pages
ISSN:1529-3785
EISSN:1557-945X
DOI:10.1145/3436816
  • Editor:
  • Orna Kupferman
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 02 December 2020
Accepted: 01 July 2020
Revised: 01 June 2020
Received: 01 January 2019
Published in TOCL Volume 22, Issue 1

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Answer-set programming
  2. disjunctive logic programs
  3. nonmonotonic reasoning
  4. program equivalence
  5. quantified Boolean logic

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed

Funding Sources

  • FWF projects “Formal Methods for Comparing and Optimizing Nonmonotonic Logic Programs”
  • “Methods and Methodologies for Developing Answer-set Programs”
  • “Treating Hard Problems with Decomposition and Dynamic Programming”

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)14
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 14 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Rethinking Answer Set Programming TemplatesPractical Aspects of Declarative Languages10.1007/978-3-031-52038-9_6(82-99)Online publication date: 10-Jan-2024
  • (2022)Comparing the Reasoning Capabilities of Equilibrium Theories and Answer Set ProgramsAlgorithms10.3390/a1506020115:6(201)Online publication date: 8-Jun-2022
  • (2022)Arguing Correctness of ASP Programs with AggregatesLogic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning10.1007/978-3-031-15707-3_15(190-202)Online publication date: 5-Sep-2022

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media