Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Logic Programming

ICLP 2005: Logic Programming pp 189–203Cite as

Towards Implementations for Advanced Equivalence Checking in Answer-Set Programming

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 3668))

Abstract

In recent work, a general framework for specifying program correspondences under the answer-set semantics has been defined. The framework allows to define different notions of equivalence, including the well-known notions of strong and uniform equivalence, as well as refined equivalence notions based on the projection of answer sets, where not all parts of an answer set are of relevance (like, e.g., removal of auxiliary letters). In the general case, deciding the correspondence of two programs lies on the fourth level of the polynomial hierarchy and therefore this task can (presumably) not be efficiently reduced to answer-set programming. In this paper, we describe an approach to compute program correspondences in this general framework by means of linear-time constructible reductions to quantified propositional logic. We can thus use extant solvers for the latter language as back-end inference engines for computing program correspondence problems. We also describe how our translations provide a method to construct counterexamples in case a program correspondence does not hold.

This work was partially supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) under grant P18019, and by the European Commission via projects FET-2001-37004 WASP, IST-2001-33570 INFOMIX, and IST-2001-33123 CologNeT.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arieli, O.: Paraconsistent Preferential Reasoning by Signed Quantified Boolean Formulae. In: Proc. ECAI 2004, pp. 773–777. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arieli, O., Denecker, M.: Reducing Preferential Paraconsistent Reasoning to Classical Entailment. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(4), 557–580 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Besnard, P., Schaub, T., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: Representing Paraconsistent Reasoning via Quantified Propositional Logic. In: Bertossi, L., Hunter, A., Schaub, T. (eds.) Inconsistency Tolerance. LNCS, vol. 3300, pp. 84–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Coste-Marquis, S., Fargier, H., Lang, J., Le Berre, D., Marquis, P.: Function Problems for Quantified Boolean Formulas. Technical Report 2003-15-R, Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse, IRIT (2003), Available at http://www.cril.univ-artois.fr/asqbf/pub/files/qbfeng7.pdf

  5. Delgrande, J., Schaub, T., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: On Computing Solutions to Belief Change Scenarios. Journal of Logic and Computation 14(6), 801–826 (2004)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Egly, U., Eiter, T., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: Solving Advanced Reasoning Tasks using Quantified Boolean Formulas. In: Proc. AAAI 2000, pp. 417–422. AAAI Press/MIT Press (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Egly, U., Pichler, R., Woltran, S.: On Deciding Subsumption Problems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 43(1–4), 255–294 (2005)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Egly, U., Seidl, M., Tompits, H., Woltran, S., Zolda, M.: Comparing Different Prenexing Strategies for Quantified Boolean Formulas. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 214–228. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Eiter, T., Faber, W., Fink, M., Pfeifer, G., Woltran, S.: Complexity of Answer Set Checking and Bounded Predicate Arities for Non-ground Answer Set Programming. In: Proc. KR 2004, pp. 377–387. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Eiter, T., Fink, M.: Uniform Equivalence of Logic Programs under the Stable Model Semantics. In: Palamidessi, C. (ed.) ICLP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2916, pp. 224–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Eiter, T., Fink, M., Woltran, S.: Semantical Characterizations and Complexity of Equivalences in Answer Set Programming. Technical Report INFSYS RR-1843-05-01, Institut für Informationssysteme, Technische Universität Wien, Austria, To appear in ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Eiter, T., Klotz, V., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: Modal Nonmonotonic Logics Revisited: Efficient Encodings for the Basic Reasoning Tasks. In: Egly, U., Fermüller, C. (eds.) TABLEAUX 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2381, pp. 100–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Eiter, T., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: On Solution Correspondences in Answer Set Programming. In: Proc. IJCAI 2005 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical Negation in Logic Programs and Disjunctive Databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Giunchiglia, E., Narizzano, M., Tacchella, A.: Backjumping for Quantified Boolean Logic Satisfiability. Artificial Intelligence 145, 99–120 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Le Berre, D., Narizzano, M., Simon, L., Tacchella, A.: The Second QBF Solvers Comparative Evaluation (2004), Available at http://www.qbflib.org/

  17. Le Berre, D., Simon, L., Tacchella, A.: Challenges in the QBF Arena: the SAT 2003 Evaluation of QBF Solvers. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 468–485. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., Scarcello, F.: The DLV System for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Technical Report cs.AI/0211004, arXiv.org. To appear in ACM Transactions on Computational Logic

    Google Scholar 

  19. Letz, R.: Lemma and Model Caching in Decision Procedures for Quantified Boolean Formulas. In: Egly, U., Fermüller, C. (eds.) TABLEAUX 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2381, pp. 160–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Lifschitz, V., Pearce, D., Valverde, A.: Strongly Equivalent Logic Programs. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(4), 526–541 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Lin, F.: Reducing Strong Equivalence of Logic Programs to Entailment in Classical Propositional Logic. In: Proc. KR 2002, pp. 170–176. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lin, F., Zhao, Y.: ASSAT: Computing Answer Sets of a Logic Program by SAT Solvers. In: Proc. AAAI 2002, pp. 112–117. AAAI Press / MIT Press (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Oikarinen, E., Janhunen, T.: Verifying the Equivalence of Logic Programs in the Disjunctive Case. In: Proc. LPNMR 2004. LNCS, vol. 2923, pp. 180–193. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pearce, D., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: Encodings for Equilibrium Logic and Logic Programs with Nested Expressions. In: Brazdil, P.B., Jorge, A.M. (eds.) EPIA 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2258, pp. 306–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rintanen, J.: Constructing Conditional Plans by a Theorem Prover. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 10, 323–352 (1999)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Simons, P., Niemelä, I., Soininen, T.: Extending and Implementing the Stable Model Semantics. Artificial Intelligence 138, 181–234 (2002)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Turner, H.: Strong Equivalence Made Easy: Nested Expressions and Weight Constraints. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3(4-5), 602–622 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Woltran, S.: Characterizations for Relativized Notions of Equivalence in Answer Set Programming. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3229, pp. 161–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Informationssysteme 184/3, Technische Universität Wien, Favoritenstraße 9-11, A-1040, Vienna, Austria

    Hans Tompits & Stefan Woltran

Authors
  1. Hans Tompits
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Woltran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Informazione, Università di Bologna, Italy

    Maurizio Gabbrielli

  2. Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at Dallas, 75080, Richardson, TX

    Gopal Gupta

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Tompits, H., Woltran, S. (2005). Towards Implementations for Advanced Equivalence Checking in Answer-Set Programming. In: Gabbrielli, M., Gupta, G. (eds) Logic Programming. ICLP 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3668. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11562931_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11562931_16

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-29208-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31947-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation