Skip to main content

A Polynomial Translation of Logic Programs with Nested Expressions into Disjunctive Logic Programs: Preliminary Report

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logic Programming (ICLP 2002)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2401))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Nested logic programs have recently been introduced in order to allow for arbitrarily nested formulas in the heads and the bodies of logic program rules under the answer sets semantics. Previous results show that nested logic programs can be transformed into standard (unnested) disjunctive logic programs in an elementary way, applying the negation-as-failure operator to body literals only. This is of great practical relevance since it allows us to evaluate nested logic programs by means of off-the-shelf disjunctive logic programming systems, like DLV. However, it turns out that this straightforward transformation results in an exponential blow-up in the worst-case, despite the fact that complexity results indicate that there is a polynomial translation among both formalisms. In this paper, we take up this challenge and provide a polynomial translation of logic programs with nested expressions into disjunctive logic programs. Moreover, we show that this translation is modular and (strongly) faithful. We have implemented both the straightforward as well as our advanced transformation; the resulting compiler serves as a front-end to DLV and is publicly available on the Web.

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

Access this chapter

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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. M. Baaz, U. Egly, and A. Leitsch. Normal Form Transformations. In Handbook of Automated Reasoning, volume I, chapter 5, pages 273–333. Elsevier Science B. V., 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. M. Baaz and C. G. Fermüller. Resolution-based Theorem Proving for Many-valued Logics. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 19(4):353–391, 1995.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. C. Baral and C. Uyan. Declarative Specification and Solution of Combinatorial Auctions Using Logic Programming. In Proc. LPNMR-01, pages 186–199, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  4. M. Cadoli, A. Giovanardi, and M. Schaerf. An Algorithm to Evaluate Quantified Boolean Formulae. In Proc. AAAI-98, pages 262–267, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  5. D. de Jongh and L. Hendriks. Characterization of Strongly Equivalent Logic Programs in Intermediate Logics. Technical report, 2001. Preprint at http://turing.wins.uva.nl/~lhendrik/.

  6. U. Egly. On Different Structure-Preserving Translations to Normal Form. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 22(2):121–142, 1996.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. U. Egly. On Definitional Transformations to Normal Form for Intuitionistic Logic. Fundamenta Informaticae, 29(1,2):165–201, 1997.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. T. Eiter, N. Leone, C. Mateis, G. Pfeifer, and F. Scarcello. A Deductive System for Non-monotonic Reasoning. In Proc. LPNMR-97, pages 363–374, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  9. T. Eiter, N. Leone, C. Mateis, G. Pfeifer, and F. Scarcello. The KR System dlv: Progress Report, Comparisons and Benchmarks. In Proc. KR-98, pages 406–417, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  10. R. Feldmann, B. Monien, and S. Schamberger. A Distributed Algorithm to Evaluate Quantified Boolean Formulas. In Proc. AAAI-00, pages 285–290, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  11. M. Gelfond, M. Balduccini, and J. Galloway. Diagnosing Physical Systems in A-Prolog. In Proc. LPNMR-01, pages 213–225, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. E. Giunchiglia, M. Narizzano, and A. Tacchella. QUBE: A System for Deciding Quantified Boolean Formulas Satisfiability. In Proc. IJCAR-01, pages 364–369, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  14. K. Gödel. Zum intuitionistischen Aussagenkalkül. Anzeiger der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, pages 65–66, 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  15. R. Hähnle. Short Conjunctive Normal Forms in Finitely Valued Logics. Journal of Logic and Computation, 4(6):905–927, 1994.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. K. Heljanko and I. Niemelä. Bounded LTL Model Checking with Stable Models. In Proc. LPNMR-01, pages 200–212, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  17. K. Inoue and C. Sakama. Negation as Failure in the Head. Journal of Logic Programming, 35(1):39–78, 1998.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. T. Janhunen. On the Intertranslatability of Autoepistemic, Default and Priority Logics, and Parallel Circumscription. In Proc. JELIA-98, pages 216–232, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  19. T. Janhunen. On the Effect of Default Negation on the Expressiveness of Disjunctive Rules. In Proc. LPNMR-01, pages 93–106, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  20. H. Kleine-Büning, M. Karpinski, and A. Flögel. Resolution for Quantified Boolean Formulas. Information and Computation, 117(1):12–18, 1995.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. R. Letz. Advances in Decision Procedures for Quantified Boolean Formulas. In Proc. IJCAR-01 Workshop on Theory and Applications of Quantified Boolean Formulas, pages 55–64, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  22. V. Lifschitz. Answer Set Planning. In Proc. ICLP-99, pages 23–37, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. V. Lifschitz, L. Tang, and H. Turner. Nested Expressions in Logic Programs. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 25(3–4):369–389, 1999.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. F. Lin. Reducing Strong Equivalence of Logic Programs to Entailment in Classical Propositional Logic. In Proc. KR-02, pages 170–176, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  26. G. Mints. Resolution Strategies for the Intuitionistic Logic. In Constraint Programming: NATO ASI Series, pages 282–304. Springer, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  27. I. Niemelä and P. Simons. Smodels: An Implementation of the Stable Model and Well-Founded Semantics for Normal Logic Programs. In Proc. LPNMR-97, pages 420–429, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  28. D. Pearce. A New Logical Characterisation of Stable Models and Answer Sets. In Non-Monotonic Extensions of Logic Programming, pages 57–70. Springer, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  29. D. Pearce. From Here to There: Stable Negation in Logic Programming. In What is Negation? Kluwer, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  30. D. Pearce, I. de Guzmán, and A. Valverde. A Tableau Calculus for Equilibrium Entailment. In Proc. TABLEAUX-00, pages 352–367, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  31. D. Pearce, I. de Guzmán, and A. Valverde. Computing Equilibrium Models Using Signed Formulas. In Proc. CL-00, pages 688–702, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  32. D. Pearce, H. Tompits, and S. Woltran. Encodings for Equilibrium Logic and Logic Programs with Nested Expressions. In Proc. EPIA-01, pages 306–320. Springer, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  33. D. A. Plaisted and S. Greenbaum. A Structure Preserving Clause Form Translation. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 2(3):293–304, 1986.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. J. Rintanen. Improvements to the Evaluation of Quantified Boolean Formulae. In Proc. IJCAI-99, pages 1192–1197, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  35. J. Siekmann and G. Wrightson, editors. Automation of Reasoning: Classical Papers in Computational Logic 1967–1970, volume 2. Springer-Verlag, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  36. G. Tseitin. On the Complexity of Proofs in Propositional Logics. Seminars in Mathematics, 8, 1970. Reprinted in [35].

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Pearce, D., Sarsakov, V., Schaub, T., Tompits, H., Woltran, S. (2002). A Polynomial Translation of Logic Programs with Nested Expressions into Disjunctive Logic Programs: Preliminary Report. In: Stuckey, P.J. (eds) Logic Programming. ICLP 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2401. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45619-8_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45619-8_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-43930-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45619-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics