A generalization of the Lin-Zhao theorem

Article

Abstract

The theorem on loop formulas due to Fangzhen Lin and Yuting Zhao shows how to turn a logic program into a propositional formula that describes the program’s stable models. In this paper we simplify and generalize the statement of this theorem. The simplification is achieved by modifying the definition of a loop in such a way that a program is turned into the corresponding propositional formula by adding loop formulas directly to the conjunction of its rules, without the intermediate step of forming the program’s completion. The generalization makes the idea of a loop formula applicable to stable models in the sense of a very general definition that covers disjunctive programs, programs with nested expressions, and more.

Keywords

logic programming stable models answer set programming nonmonotonic reasoning Clark’s completion loop formulas 

Mathematics Subject Classifications (2000)

68N17 68T27 68T30 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Clark, K.: Negation as failure. In: Gallaire, H., Minker, J. (eds.) Logic and Data Bases, pp. 293–322. Plenum, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Erdem, E., Lifschitz, V.: Tight logic programs. Theory and Pract. Log. Prog. 3, 499–518 (2003)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fages, F.: Consistency of Clark’s completion and existence of stable models. J. Meth. Log. Comput. Sci. 1, 51–60 (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferraris P., Lifschitz V.: Mathematical foundations of answer set programming. In: We Will Show Them! Essays in Honour of Dov Gabbay, vol. 1, pp. 615–665. King’s College, London (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ferraris P.: Answer sets for propositional theories. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR), Cosenza, Italy, 119–131 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gelfond M., Lifschitz V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Kowalski R., Bowen K. (eds.) Proceedings of International Logic Programming Conference and Symposium, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1070–1080 (1988)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gelfond M., Lifschitz V.: Logic programs with classical negation. In: Warren D., Szeredi P. (eds.) Proceedings of International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP), Jerusalem, Israel, 579–597, June (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee J., Lifschitz V.: Loop formulas for disjunctive logic programs. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP), Mumbai, India, 451–465, December (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee J.: A model-theoretic counterpart of loop formulas. In: Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Edinburgh, Scotland, 503–508 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leone, N., Rullo, P., Scarcello, F.: Disjunctive stable models: Unfounded sets, fixpoint semantics, and computation. Inf. comput. 135(2), 69–112 (1997)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lierler Y.: Cmodels: SAT-based disjunctive answer set solver. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR), Diamante, Italy, 447–452 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lifschitz V., Razborov A.: Why are there so many loop formulas? ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 7(2), 261–268 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lifschitz, V., Tang, L.R., Turner, H.: Nested expressions in logic programs. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 25, 369–389 (1999)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lifschitz V.: Circumscription. In: Gabbay D.M., Hogger C.J., Robinson J.A., (eds.) The Handbook of Logic in AI and Logic Programming, vol.3 pp. 298–352. Oxford University Press, UK (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin, F., Zhao, Y.: ASSAT: Computing answer sets of a logic program by SAT solvers. Artif. Intell. 157, 115–137 (2004)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McCarthy J.: Circumscription—a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artif. intell. 13, 27–39, 171–172 (1980)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCarthy, J.: Applications of circumscription to formalizing common sense knowledge. Artif. Intell. 26(3), 89–116 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCarthy, J.: Formalizing Common Sense: Papers by John McCarthy. Ablex, Norwood New Jersey (1990)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pearce D., Tompits H., Woltran S.: Encodings for equilibrium logic and logic programs with nested expressions. In: Proceedings of Portuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence (EPIA), Porto, Portugal, 306–320 (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pearce, D.: A new logical characterization of stable models and answer sets. In: Dix, J., Pereira, L., Przymusinski, T. (eds.) Non-Monotonic Extensions of Logic Programming (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1216), pp. 57–70. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saccá D., Zaniolo C.: Stable models and non-determinism in logic programs with negation. In: Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), Nashville, Tennesse 205–217 (1990)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Troelstra A.S., Schwichtenberg H.: Basic Proof Theory. Cambridge University Press, UK (1996)MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Gelder, A., Ross, K., Schlipf, J.: The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. J. ACM 38(3), 620–650 (1991)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo Ferraris
    • 1
  • Joohyung Lee
    • 2
  • Vladimir Lifschitz
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations