Advertisement

On the Minimality of Stable Models

  • Paolo Ferraris
  • Vladimir Lifschitz
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6565)

Abstract

The class of logic programs covered by the original definition of a stable model has the property that all stable models of a program in this class are minimal. In the course of research on answer set programming, the concept of a stable model was extended to several new programming constructs, and for some of these extensions the minimality property does not hold. We are interested in syntactic conditions on a logic program that guarantee the minimality of its stable models. This question is addressed here in the context of the general theory of stable models of first-order sentences.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Apt et al., 1988]
    Apt, K., Blair, H., Walker, A.: Towards a theory of declarative knowledge. In: Minker, J. (ed.) Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pp. 89–148. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [Bidoit and Froidevaux, 1987]
    Bidoit, N., Froidevaux, C.: Minimalism subsumes default logic and circumscription in stratified logic programming. In: Proceedings LICS 1987, pp. 89–97 (1987)Google Scholar
  3. [Eiter et al., 2005]
    Eiter, T., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: On solution correspondences in answer-set programming. In: Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 97–102 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. [Ferraris et al., 2010]
    Ferraris, P., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V.: Stable models and circumscription8. Artificial Intelligence 175, 236–263 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [Ferraris, 2005]
    Ferraris, P.: Answer sets for propositional theories. In: Baral, C., Greco, G., Leone, N., Terracina, G. (eds.) LPNMR 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3662, pp. 119–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [Gelfond and Lifschitz, 1988]
    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, pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  7. [Gelfond, 1987]
    Gelfond, M.: On stratified autoepistemic theories. In: Proceedings of National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 207–211 (1987)Google Scholar
  8. [Kim et al., 2009]
    Kim, T.-W., Lee, J., Palla, R.: Circumscriptive event calculus as answer set programming. In: Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 823–829 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. [McCarthy, 1986]
    McCarthy, J.: Applications of circumscription to formalizing common sense knowledge. Artificial Intelligence 26(3), 89–116 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [Van Gelder et al., 1988]
    Van Gelder, A., Ross, K., Schlipf, J.: Unfounded sets and well-founded semantics for general logic programs. In: Proceedings of the Seventh ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Austin, Texas, March 21-23, pp. 221–230. ACM Press, New York (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [Van Gelder, 1988]
    Van Gelder, A.: Negation as failure using tight derivations for general logic programs. In: Minker, J. (ed.) Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pp. 149–176. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo Ferraris
    • 1
  • Vladimir Lifschitz
    • 2
  1. 1.GoogleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Texas at AustinUSA

Personalised recommendations