Advertisement

Computing non-ground representations of stable models

  • Thomas Eiter
  • James Lu
  • V. S. Subrahmanian
Regular Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1265)

Abstract

Turi [20] introduced the important notion of a constrained atom: an atom with associated equality and disequality constraints on its arguments. A set of constrained atoms is a constrained interpretation. We show how non-ground representations of both the stable model and the well-founded semantics may be obtained through Turi's approach. As a practical consequence, the well-founded model (or the set of stable models) may be partially pre-computed at compile-time, resulting in the association of each predicate symbol in the program to a constrained atom. Algorithms to create such models are presented. Query processing reduces to checking whether each atom in the query is true in a stable model (resp. well-founded model). This amounts to showing the atom is an instance of one of some constrained atom whose associated constraint is solvable. Various related complexity results are explored, and the impacts of these results are discussed from the point of view of implementing systems that incorporate the stable and well-founded semantics.

keywords

stable models non-ground representation constraints algorithms complexity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    C. Baral and V.S. Subrahmanian. Dualities Between Alternative Semantics for Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning, J. Automated Reasoning, 10:399–420, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Bell, A. Nerode, R. Ng and V.S. Subrahmanian. (1994) Computation and Implementation of Non-Monotonic Deductive Databases, JACM, 41(6):1178–1215, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Comon, P. Lescanne. Equational Problems and Disunification, J. Symbolic Computation, 7:371–425, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Dix and M. Müller. Implementing Semantics of Disjunctive Logic Programs Using Fringes and Abstract Properties, Proc. LPNMR '93, (eds. L.-M. Pereira and A. Nerode), pp 43–59, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Dix and F. Stolzenburg. Computation of Non-Ground Disjunctive Well-Founded Semantics with Constraint Logic Programming. In J. Dix, L. M. Pereira, and T. C. Przymusinski, eds, Proc. WS Non-Monotonic Extensions of Logic Programming (at JICSLP '96), pp 143–160, 1996. CS-Report 17/96, Univ. Koblenz.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M.C. Fitting. A Kripke-Kleene Semantics for Logic Programming, J. Logic Programming, 4:295–312, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Gabbrielli, G. Levi. Modeling Answer Constraints in Constraint Logic Programs, Proc. ICLP, 1991, pp.238–251.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Johnson, A Catalogue of Complexity Classes. In: Handbook of TCS, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming, in: Proc. 5th JICSLP, pp 1070–1080, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. Classical Negation in Logic Programs and Disjunctive Databases, New Generation Computing, 9:365–385, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Gottlob, S. Marcus, A. Nerode, G. Salzer, and V.S. Subrahmanian. A Non-Ground Realization of the Stable and Well-Founded Semantics, Theoretical Computer Science, 166:221–262, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    V. Kagan, A. Nerode, and V. Subrahmanian. Computing Minimal Models by Partial Instantiation. Theoretical Computer Science, 155:15–177, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.W. Lloyd. Foundations of Logic Programming, Springer Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Maher. Complete Axiomatization of the algebra of finite, rational and infinite trees, in Proc. 3rd IEEE LICS, 1988.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. Marek, A. Nerode, J. Remmel. On Logical Constraints in Logic Programming, Proc. LPNMR '95 (eds. W. Marek, A. Nerode, and M. Truszczyński), LNCS 928, pp 44–56, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    N. McCain and H. Turner. Language Independence and Language Tolerance in Logic Programs, Proc. ICLP, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Sato and F. Motoyoshi. A Complete Top-down Interpreter for First Order Programs, Proc. ILPS '91, pp 37–53. MIT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    P. Stuckey. Constructive Negation for Constraint Logic Programming, Proc. LICS'91, pp 328–339. IEEE Computer Science Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    V.S. Subrahmanian, D. Nau and C. Vago. WFS+Branch and Bound=Stable Models, IEEE TDKE, 7(3):362–377, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Turi. Extending S-Models to Logic Programs with Negation, Proc. ICLP '91, pp 397–411, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. van Gelder, K. Ross and J. Schlipf. Well-founded Semantics for General Logic Programs, JACM, 38(3):620–650, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. van Gelder. The Alternating Fixpoint of Logic Programs with Negation, Proc. 8th ACM Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, pp 1–10.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Vardi. The On the Complexity of Bounded-Variable Queries, Proc. 14th ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, San Francisco, pp. 137–146, 1982.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. Vorobyov. An Improved Lower Bound for the Elementary Theories of Trees. In J. K. S. M. A. McRobbie, ed, Proc. 13th Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE '96), LNCS 1104, pp. 275–287, 1996.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    S. Vorobyov. Existential Theory of Term Algebras is in Quasi-Linear Non-Deterministic Time. Manuscript, February 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Eiter
    • 1
  • James Lu
    • 2
  • V. S. Subrahmanian
    • 3
  1. 1.AG InformatikUniversität GiessenGiessenGermany
  2. 2.CS DeptBucknell UniversityLewisburg
  3. 3.Institute for Advanced Computer StudiesUniversity of MarylandCollege Park

Personalised recommendations