ICLP 2003: Logic Programming pp 209-223 | Cite as

Computing Minimal Models, Stable Models, and Answer Sets

  • Zbigniew Lonc
  • Mirosław Truszczyński
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2916)

Abstract

We propose and study algorithms for computing minimal models, stable models and answer sets of 2- and 3-CNF theories, and normal and disjunctive 2- and 3-programs. We are especially interested in algorithms with non-trivial worst-case performance bounds. We show that one can find all minimal models of 2-CNF theories and all answer sets of disjunctive 2-programs in time O(m 1.4422.. n ) (n is the number of atoms in an input theory or program and m is its size). Our main results concern computing stable models of normal 3-programs, minimal models of 3-CNF theories and answer sets of disjunctive 3-programs. We design algorithms that run in time O(m1.6701.. n ), in the case of the first problem, and in time O(mn 22.2720.. n ), in the case of the latter two. All these bounds improve by exponential factors the best algorithms known previously. We also obtain closely related upper bounds on the number of minimal models, stable models and answer sets a 2- or 3-theory or program may have.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ben-Eliyahu, R., Palopoli, L.: Reasoning with minimal models: Efficient algorithms and applications. In: Proceedings of KR 1994, San Francisco, CA. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brewka, G., Dix, J., Konolige, K.: Nonmonotonic Reasoning, An Overview. CSLI Publications, Stanford (1997)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cadoli, M., Lenzerini, M.: The complexity of propositional closed world reasoning and circumscription. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 48, 255–310 (1994); Shorter version in the Proceedings of AAAI 1990MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: On the computational cost of disjunctive logic programming: propositional case. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 15(3-4), 289–323 (1995)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G.: Declarative problem-solving in DLV. In: Minker, J. (ed.) Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence, pp. 79–103. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable semantics for logic programs. In: Kowalski, R., Bowen, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kullmann, O.: New methods for 3-SAT decision and worst-case analysis. Theoretical Computer Science, pp. 1–72 (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lifschitz, V.: Circumscriptive theories: a logic-based framework for knowledge representation. Journal of Philosophical Logic 17(4), 391–441 (1988)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lonc, Z., Truszczyński, M.: Computing stable models: worst-case performance estimates. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (2003) (to appear)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marek, V.W., Truszczyński, M.: Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In: Apt, K.R., Marek, W., Truszczyński, M., Warren, D.S. (eds.) The Logic Programming Paradigm: a 25-Year Perspective, pp. 375–398. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marek, W., Truszczyński, M.: Nonmonotonic Logic; Context-Dependent Reasoning. Springer, Berlin (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCarthy, J.: Circumscription — a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13(1-2), 27–39 (1980)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Niemelä, I.: A tableau calculus for minimal model reasoning. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods. LNCS, pp. 278–294. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Niemelä, I.: Logic programming with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25(3-4), 241–273 (1999)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rodošek, R.: A new approach on solving 3-satisfiability. In: Pfalzgraf, J., Calmet, J., Campbell, J. (eds.) AISMC 1996. LNCS, vol. 1138, pp. 197–212. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Simons, P., Niemelä, I., Soininen, T.: Extending and implementing the stable model semantics. Artificial Intelligence 138, 181–234 (2002)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zbigniew Lonc
    • 1
  • Mirosław Truszczyński
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Mathematics and Information ScienceWarsaw University of TechnologyWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations