Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Applying Visible Strong Equivalence in Answer-Set Program Transformations

  • Chapter
Correct Reasoning

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 7265))

Abstract

Strong equivalence is one of the basic notions of equivalence that have been proposed for logic programs subject to the answer-set semantics. In this paper, we propose a new generalization of strong equivalence which takes the visibility of atoms into account and we characterize it in terms of revised SE-models. Our design resembles (relativized) strong equivalence but is essentially different due to the strict correspondence of models adopted from the notion of visible equivalence. We illustrate the use of visible strong equivalence when showing correct program transformations introducing lots of auxiliary atoms. Moreover, we present a translation which enables us to automate the task of verifying the visible strong equivalence of smodels programs having enough visible atoms.

The support from the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Computational Inference Research (COIN) funded by the Academy of Finland (under grant #251170) is gratefully acknowledged.

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

Access this chapter

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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brewka, G., Eiter, T., Truszczynski, M.: Answer set programming at a glance. Communications of the ACM 54(12), 92–103 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: Translating pseudo-Boolean constraints into SAT. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation 2(1–4), 1–26 (2006)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 

  4. Eiter, T., Fink, M., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: Simplifying Logic Programs Under Uniform and Strong Equivalence. In: Lifschitz, V., Niemelä, I. (eds.) LPNMR 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2923, pp. 87–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Eiter, T., Fink, M., Woltran, S.: Semantical characterizations and complexity of equivalences in answer set programming. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 8(3) (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Eiter, T., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: On solution correspondences in answer-set programming. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2005, pp. 97–102. Professional Book Center (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fink, M.: A general framework for equivalences in answer-set programming by countermodels in the logic of here-and-there. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 11(2-3), 171–202 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Schaub, T.: The Conflict-Driven Answer Set Solver clasp: Progress Report. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5753, pp. 509–514. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming, ICLP 1988, pp. 1070–1080 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Logic programs with classical negation. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Logic Programming, ICLP 1990, pp. 579–597 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385 (1991)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Janhunen, T.: Some (in)translatability results for normal logic programs and propositional theories. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 16(1–2), 35–86 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I.: Compact Translations of Non-disjunctive Answer Set Programs to Propositional Clauses. In: Balduccini, M., Son, T.C. (eds.) Logic Programming, Knowledge Representation, and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. LNCS, vol. 6565, pp. 111–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Janhunen, T., Oikarinen, E.: Automated verification of weak equivalence within the Smodels system. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 7(6), 697–744 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Janhunen, T., Oikarinen, E., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: Modularity aspects of disjunctive stable models. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 35, 813–857 (2009)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Lifschitz, V.: Computing circumscription. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Los Angeles, California, USA, pp. 121–127. Morgan Kaufmann (August 1985)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lifschitz, V.: Answer set planning. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Logic Programming, ICLP 1999, pp. 23–37 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lifschitz, V., Pearce, D., Valverde, A.: Strongly equivalent logic programs. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(4), 526–541 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Lifschitz, V., Turner, H.: Splitting a logic program. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Logic Programming, ICLP 1994, Santa Margherita Ligure, Italy, pp. 23–37. MIT Press (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Liu, L., Truszczynski, M.: Properties and applications of programs with monotone and convex constraints. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 27, 299–334 (2006)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. McCarthy, J.: Applications of circumscription to formalizing commonsense knowledge. Artificial Intelligence 28, 89–116 (1986)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Oikarinen, E., Janhunen, T.: Achieving compositionality of the stable model semantics for smodels programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 8(5-6), 717–761 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Pearce, D.: Equilibrium logic. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 47(1-2), 3–41 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Pührer, J., Tompits, H.: Casting Away Disjunction and Negation under a Generalisation of Strong Equivalence with Projection. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5753, pp. 264–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Simons, P., Niemelä, I., Soininen, T.: Extending and implementing the stable model semantics. Artificial Intelligence 138(1-2), 181–234 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Turner, H.: Strong Equivalence for Logic Programs and Default Theories (Made Easy). In: Eiter, T., Faber, W., Truszczyński, M. (eds.) LPNMR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2173, pp. 81–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Turner, H.: Strong equivalence made easy: nested expressions and weight constraints. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3(4-5), 609–622 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  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 

  29. Woltran, S.: A common view on strong, uniform, and other notions of equivalence in answer-set programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 8(2), 217–234 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information and Computer Science, Aalto University, P.O. Box 15400, FI-00076, Aalto, Finland

    Tomi Janhunen & Ilkka Niemelä

Authors
  1. Tomi Janhunen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ilkka Niemelä
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Engineering and Natural Science, Sabanci University, Orhanli, 34956, Tuzla, Istanbul, Turkey

    Esra Erdem

  2. School of Computing, Informatics and Decision Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 878809, 85287, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Joohyung Lee

  3. Department of Computer Science, University of Kentucky, 329 Rose Street, 40506, Lexington, KY, USA

    Yuliya Lierler

  4. Department of Artificial Intelligence, Politechnical University of Madrid, Campus de Montegancedo, 28660, Boadilla del Monte, Madrid, Spain

    David Pearce

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I. (2012). Applying Visible Strong Equivalence in Answer-Set Program Transformations. In: Erdem, E., Lee, J., Lierler, Y., Pearce, D. (eds) Correct Reasoning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7265. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30743-0_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30743-0_24

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-30742-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-30743-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation