CR-Prolog is an extension of A-Prolog, the knowledge representation language at the core of the Answer Set Programming paradigm. CR-Prolog is based on the introduction in A-Prolog of consistency-restoring rules (cr-rules for short), and allows an elegant formalization of events or exceptions that are unlikely, unusual, or undesired. The flexibility of the language has been extensively demonstrated in the literature, with examples that include planning and diagnostic reasoning. In this paper we hope to provide the technical means to further stimulate the study and use of CR-Prolog, by extending to CR-Prolog the Splitting Set Theorem, one of the most useful theoretical results available for A-Prolog. The availability of the Splitting Set Theorem for CR-Prolog is expected to simplify significantly the proofs of the properties of CR-Prolog programs.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Proceedings of ICLP 1988, pp. 1070–1080 (1988)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing, 365–385 (1991)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.: 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
  5. 5.
    Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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. AAAI 2003 Spring Symposium Series, March 2003, pp. 9–18 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Balduccini, M.: USA-Smart: Improving the Quality of Plans in Answer Set Planning. In: Jayaraman, B. (ed.) PADL 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3057, pp. 135–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baral, C., Gelfond, M., Rushton, N.: Probabilistic reasoning with answer sets. Journal of Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP) (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Balduccini, M., Gelfond, M., Nogueira, M.: Answer Set Based Design of Knowledge Systems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Lifschitz, V., Turner, H.: Splitting a logic program. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 1994), pp. 23–38 (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Balduccini, M., Mellarkod, V.S.: CR-Prolog with Ordered Disjunction. In: International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, NMR 2004 (June 2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Balduccini, M.: CR-MODELS: An Inference Engine for CR-Prolog. In: Baral, C., Brewka, G., Schlipf, J. (eds.) LPNMR 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4483, pp. 18–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Turner, H.: Splitting a Default Theory. In: Proceedings of AAAI 1996, pp. 645–651 (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Watson, R.: A Splitting Set Theorem for Epistemic Specifications. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2000) (April 2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcello Balduccini
    • 1
  1. 1.Intelligent Systems DepartmentEastman Kodak CompanyRochester, NYUSA

Personalised recommendations