Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:57:52.402Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A general framework for equivalences in Answer-Set Programming by countermodels in the logic of Here-and-There*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2011

MICHAEL FINK
MICHAEL FINK*
Affiliation:
Institut für Informationssysteme, Technische Universität Wien, Favoritenstraße 9-11, A-1040 Vienna, Austria (e-mail: fink@kr.tuwien.ac.at)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Different notions of equivalence, such as the prominent notions of strong and uniform equivalence, have been studied in Answer-Set Programming, mainly for the purpose of identifying programs that can serve as substitutes without altering the semantics, for instance in program optimization. Such semantic comparisons are usually characterized by various selections of models in the logic of Here-and-There (HT). For uniform equivalence however, correct characterizations in terms of HT-models can only be obtained for finite theories, respectively programs. In this paper, we show that a selection of countermodels in HT captures uniform equivalence also for infinite theories. This result is turned into coherent characterizations of the different notions of equivalence by countermodels, as well as by a mixture of HT-models and countermodels (so-called equivalence interpretations). Moreover, we generalize the so-called notion of relativized hyperequivalence for programs to propositional theories, and apply the same methodology in order to obtain a semantic characterization which is amenable to infinite settings. This allows for a lifting of the results to first-order theories under a very general semantics given in terms of a quantified version of HT. We thus obtain a general framework for the study of various notions of equivalence for theories under answer-set semantics. Moreover, we prove an expedient property that allows for a simplified treatment of extended signatures, and provide further results for non-ground logic programs. In particular, uniform equivalence coincides under open and ordinary answer-set semantics, and for finite non-ground programs under these semantics, also the usual characterization of uniform equivalence in terms of maximal and total HT-models of the grounding is correct, even for infinite domains, when corresponding ground programs are infinite.

Keywords

Answer-Set ProgrammingUniform equivalenceRelativized equivalenceKnowledge representation
Type
Regular Papers
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 11 , Special Issue 2-3: The 24th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2008) , March 2011 , pp. 171 - 202
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baral, C. 2003. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabalar, P. and Ferraris, P. 2007. Propositional theories are strongly equivalent to logic programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 7, 6, 745–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabalar, P., Pearce, D. and Valverde, A. 2007. Minimal logic programs. In ICLP, Dahl, V. and Niemelä, I., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4670. Springer, 104–118.Google Scholar
Dao-Tran, M., Eiter, T., Fink, M. and Krennwallner, T. 2009. Modular nonmonotonic logic programming revisited. In ICLP, Hill, P. M. and Warren, D. S., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5649. Springer, 145–159.Google Scholar
de Bruijn, J., Pearce, D., Polleres, A. and Valverde, A. 2007. Quantified equilibrium logic and hybrid rules. In RR, Marchiori, M., Pan, J. Z. and de Sainte Marie, C., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4524. Springer, 58–72.Google Scholar
Eiter, T. and Fink, M. 2003. Uniform equivalence of logic programs under the stable model semantics. In ICLP, Palamidessi, C., Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2916. Springer, 224–238.Google Scholar
Eiter, T., Fink, M., Tompits, H., Traxler, P. and Woltran, S. 2006. Replacements in non-ground answer-set programming. In KR, Doherty, P., Mylopoulos, J. and Welty, C. A., Eds. AAAI Press, 340–351.Google Scholar
Eiter, T., Fink, M., Tompits, H. and Woltran, S. 2005. Strong and uniform equivalence in answer-set programming: Characterizations and complexity results for the non-ground case. In AAAI, Veloso, M. M. and Kambhampati, S., Eds. AAAI Press, 695–700.Google Scholar
Eiter, T., Fink, M., Tompits, H. and Woltran, S. 2007a. Complexity results for checking equivalence of stratified logic programs. In IJCAI, Veloso, M. M., Ed. AAAI Press, 330–335.Google Scholar
Eiter, T., Fink, M. and Woltran, S. 2007b. Semantical characterizations and complexity of equivalences in answer set programming. ACM Transactions on Computer Logic 8, 3 (Article 17, 1–53).Google Scholar
Eiter, T., Tompits, H. and Woltran, S. 2005. On solution correspondences in answer-set programming. In IJCAI, Kaelbling, L. P. and Saffiotti, A., Eds. Professional Book Center, 97–102.Google Scholar
Faber, W. and Konczak, K. 2006. Strong order equivalence. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 47, 1–2, 43–78.Google Scholar
Faber, W., Tompits, H. and Woltran, S. 2008. Notions of strong equivalence for logic programs with ordered disjunction. In KR, Brewka, G. and Lang, J., Eds. AAAI Press, 433–443.Google Scholar
Ferraris, P., Lee, J. and Lifschitz, V. 2007. A new perspective on stable models. In IJCAI, Veloso, M. M., Ed. AAAI Press, 372–379.Google Scholar
Fink, M. 2008. Equivalences in answer-set programming by countermodels in the logic of here-and-there. In ICLP, de la Banda, M. G. and Pontelli, E., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5366. Springer, 99–113.Google Scholar
Fink, M. 2009. On Equivalences in Answer-Set Programming by Countermodels in the Logic of Here-and-There. Tech. Rep. INFSYS RR-1843-09-05, Institut für Informationssysteme, Technische Universität Wien, Austria.Google Scholar
Fink, M. and Pearce, D. 2009. Some equivalence concepts for hybrid theories. In CAEPIA. Spanish Association for Artificial Intelligence, 327–336.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Neumann, A. and Schaub, T. 2007. clasp : A conflict-driven answer set solver. In LPNMR, Baral, C., Brewka, G. and Schlipf, J. S., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4483. Springer, 260–265.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385.Google Scholar
Heymans, S., de Bruijn, J., Predoiu, L., Feier, C. and Nieuwenborgh, D. V. 2008. Guarded hybrid knowledge bases. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 8, 3, 411–429.Google Scholar
Heymans, S., Nieuwenborgh, D. V. and Vermeir, D. 2007. Open answer set programming for the semantic web. Journal Applied Logic 5, 1, 144–169.Google Scholar
Inoue, K. and Sakama, C. 2004. Equivalence of logic programs under updates. In JELIA, Alferes, J. J. and Leite, J. A., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3229. Springer, 174–186.Google Scholar
Janhunen, T. 2008. Modular equivalence in general. In ECAI, Ghallab, M., Spyropoulos, C. D., Fakotakis, N. and Avouris, N. M., Eds. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 178. IOS Press, 75–79.Google Scholar
Janhunen, T. and Niemelä, I. 2004. GnT - A solver for disjunctive logic programs. In LPNMR, Lifschitz, V. and Niemelä, I., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2923. Springer, 331–335.Google Scholar
Janhunen, T., Oikarinen, E., Tompits, H. and Woltran, S. 2009. Modularity aspects of disjunctive stable models. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 35, 813–857.Google Scholar
Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S. and Scarcello, F. 2006. The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Transactions on Computer Logic 7, 3, 499–562.Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V., Pearce, D. and Valverde, A. 2007. A characterization of strong equivalence for logic programs with variables. In LPNMR, Baral, C., Brewka, G. and Schlipf, J. S., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4483. Springer, 188–200.Google Scholar
Lin, F. and Chen, Y. 2007. Discovering classes of strongly equivalent logic programs. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 28, 431–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, F. and Zhao, Y. 2004. Assat: computing answer sets of a logic program by sat solvers. Artificial Intelligence 157, 1-2, 115–137.Google Scholar
Oetsch, J., Seidl, M., Tompits, H. and Woltran, S. 2006. cct: A correspondence-checking tool for logic programs under the answer-set semantics. In JELIA, Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B. and Lisitsa, A., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4160. Springer, 502–505.Google Scholar
Oetsch, J., Tompits, H. and Woltran, S. 2007. Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored: Relativised uniform equivalence with answer-set projection. In AAAI. AAAI Press, 458–464.Google Scholar
Oikarinen, E. and Janhunen, T. 2006. Modular equivalence for normal logic programs. In ECAI, Brewka, G., Coradeschi, S., Perini, A. and Traverso, P., Eds. IOS Press, 412–416.Google Scholar
Pearce, D., Tompits, H. and Woltran, S. 2007. Relativised equivalence in equilibrium logic and its applications to prediction and explanation: Preliminary report. In CENT, Pearce, D., Polleres, A., Valverde, A. and Woltran, S., Eds. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 265. CEUR-WS.org, 37–48.Google Scholar
Pearce, D. and Valverde, A. 2004. Uniform equivalence for equilibrium logic and logic programs. In LPNMR, Lifschitz, V. and Niemelä, I., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2923. Springer, 194–206.Google Scholar
Pearce, D. and Valverde, A. 2006. Quantified Equilibrium Logic an the First Order Logic of Here-and-There. Tech. Rep. MA-06-02, University Rey Juan Carlos.Google Scholar
Pearce, D. and Valverde, A. 2008. Quantified equilibrium logic and foundations for answer set programs. In ICLP, de la Banda, M. G. and Pontelli, E., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5366. Springer, 546–560.Google Scholar
Pührer, J. and Tompits, H. 2009. Casting away disjunction and negation under a generalisation of strong equivalence with projection. In LPNMR, Erdem, E., Lin, F. and Schaub, T., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5753. Springer, 264–276.Google Scholar
Pührer, J., Tompits, H. and Woltran, S. 2008. Elimination of disjunction and negation in answer-set programs under hyperequivalence. In ICLP, de la Banda, M. G. and Pontelli, E., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5366. Springer, 561–575.Google Scholar
Sakama, C. and Inoue, K. 2009. Equivalence issues in abduction and induction. Journal Applied Logic 7, 3, 318–328.Google Scholar
Simons, P., Niemelä, I. and Soininen, T. 2002. Extending and Implementing the Stable Model Semantics. Artificial Intelligence 138, 181–234.Google Scholar
Truszczynski, M. and Woltran, S. 2008a. Hyperequivalence of logic programs with respect to supported models. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 53, 1–4, 331–365.Google Scholar
Truszczynski, M. and Woltran, S. 2008b. Relativized hyperequivalence of logic programs for modular programming. In ICLP, de la Banda, M. G. and Pontelli, E., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5366. Springer, 576–590.Google Scholar
Woltran, S. 2008. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar