How Flexible Is Answer Set Programming? An Experiment in Formalizing Commonsense in ASP

  • Marcello Balduccini
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5753)


This paper describes an exercise in the formalization of commonsense with Answer Set Programming aimed at finding the answer to an interesting riddle, whose solution is not obvious to many people. Solving the riddle requires a considerable amount of commonsense knowledge and sophisticated knowledge representation and reasoning techniques, including planning and adversarial reasoning. Most importantly, the riddle is difficult enough to make it unclear, at first analysis, whether and how Answer Set Programming or other formalisms can be used to solve it.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    McCarthy, J.: Programs with Common Sense. In: Proceedings of the Third Biannual World Automaton Congress, pp. 75–91 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mueller, E.T.: Commonsense Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marek, V.W., Truszczynski, M.: Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In: The Logic Programming Paradigm: a 25-Year Perspective, pp. 375–398. Springer, Berlin (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing, 365–385 (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Balduccini, M., Gelfond, M.: Logic Programs with Consistency-Restoring Rules. In: Doherty, P., McCarthy, J., Williams, M.A. (eds.) International Symposium on Logical Formalization of Commonsense Reasoning, March 2003. AAAI 2003 Spring Symposium Series, pp. 9–18 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brewka, G., Niemela, I., Syrjanen, T.: Logic Programs with Ordered Disjunction 20(2), 335–357 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mellarkod, V.S., Gelfond, M., Zhang, Y.: Integrating Answer Set Programming and Constraint Logic Programming. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Action Languages. Electronic Transactions on AI 3(16) (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gelfond, M.: Representing knowledge in A-prolog. In: Kakas, A.C., Sadri, F. (eds.) Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond, Part II. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2408, pp. 413–451. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hayes, P.J., McCarthy, J.: Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence. In: Meltzer, B., Michie, D. (eds.) Machine Intelligence 4, pp. 463–502. Edinburgh University Press (1969)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sakama, C.: Induction from answer sets in nonmonotonic logic programs. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 6(2), 203–231 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Balduccini, M.: Learning Action Descriptions with A-Prolog: Action Language C. In: Amir, E., Lifschitz, V., Miller, R. (eds.) Procs. of Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning, 2007 AAAI Spring Symposium (March 2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Son, T.C., Sakama, C.: Negotiation Using Logic Programming with Consistency Restoring Rules. In: 2009 International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcello Balduccini
    • 1
  1. 1.Intelligent SystemsOCTO, Eastman Kodak CompanyRochester, NYUSA

Personalised recommendations