This paper describes a generalization of Clark’s completion that is applicable to logic programs containing arithmetic operations and produces syntactically simple, natural looking formulas. If a set of first-order axioms is equivalent to the completion of a program, then we may be able to find standard models of these axioms by running an answer set solver. As an example, we apply this “reverse completion” procedure to the Sum and Product Puzzle.

Theory of stable models is the mathematical basis of answer set programming. Several results in that theory refer to the concept of the positive dependency graph of a logic program. We describe a modification of that concept and show that the new understanding of positive dependency makes it possible to strengthen some of these results.

In the theory of answer set programming, two groups of rules are called strongly equivalent if, informally speaking, they have the same meaning in any context. The relationship between strong equivalence and the propositional logic of here-and-there allows us to establish strong equivalence by deriving rules of each group from rules of the other. In the process, rules are rewritten as propositional formulas. We extend this method of proving strong equivalence to an answer set programming language that includes operations on integers. The formula representing a rule in this language is a first-order formula that may contain comparison symbols among its predicate constants, and symbols for arithmetic operations among its function constants. The paper is under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.

The input language of the answer set solver clingo is based on the definition of a stable model proposed by Paolo Ferraris. The semantics of the ASP-Core language, developed by the ASP Standardization Working Group, uses the approach to stable models due to Wolfgang Faber, Nicola Leone, and Gerald Pfeifer. The two languages are based on different versions of the stable model semantics, and the ASP-Core document requires, “for the sake of an uncontroversial semantics,” that programs avoid the use of recursion through aggregates. In this paper we prove that the absence of recursion through aggregates does indeed guarantee the equivalence between the two versions of the stable model semantics, and show how that requirement can be relaxed without violating the equivalence property.

In this paper, we propose an extension of logic programming where each default literal derived from the well-founded model is associated to a justification represented as an algebraic expression. This expression contains both causal explanations (in the form of proof graphs built with rule labels) and terms under the scope of negation that stand for conditions that enable or disable the application of causal rules. Using some examples, we discuss how these new conditions, we respectively call enablers and inhibitors, are intimately related to default negation and have an essentially different nature from regular cause-effect relations. The most important result is a formal comparison to the recent algebraic approaches for justifications in logic programming: Why-not Provenance and Causal Graphs. We show that the current approach extends both Why-not Provenance and Causal Graphs justifications under the well-founded semantics and, as a byproduct, we also establish a formal relation between these two approaches.

It is widely acknowledged that function symbols are an important feature in answer set programming, as they make modelling easier, increase the expressive power, and allow us to deal with infinite domains. The main issue with their introduction is that the evaluation of a program might not terminate and checking whether it terminates or not is undecidable. To cope with this problem, several classes of logic programs have been proposed where the use of function symbols is restricted but the program evaluation termination is guaranteed. Despite the significant body of work in this area, current approaches do not include many simple practical programs whose evaluation terminates. In this paper, we present the novel classes of rule-bounded and cycle-bounded programs, which overcome different limitations of current approaches by performing a more global analysis of how terms are propagated from the body to the head of rules. Results on the correctness, the complexity, and the expressivity of the proposed approach are provided.

Recently, there has been an increasing interest in the bottom-up evaluation of the semantics of logic programs with complex terms. The presence of function symbols in the program may render the ground instantiation infinite, and finiteness of models and termination of the evaluation procedure, in the general case, are not guaranteed anymore. Since the program termination problem is undecidable in the general case, several decidable criteria (called program termination criteria) have been recently proposed. However, current conditions are not able to identify even simple programs, whose bottom-up execution always terminates. The paper introduces new decidable criteria for checking termination of logic programs with function symbols under bottom-up evaluation, by deeply analyzing the program structure. First, we analyze the propagation of complex terms among arguments by means of the extended version of the argument graph called propagation graph. The resulting criterion, called acyclicity, generalizes most of the decidable criteria proposed so far. Next, we study how rules may activate each other and define a more powerful criterion, called safety. This criterion uses the so-called safety function able to analyze how rules may activate each other and how the presence of some arguments in a rule limits its activation. We also study the application of the proposed criteria to bound queries and show that the safety criterion is well-suited to identify relevant classes of programs and bound queries. Finally, we propose a hierarchy of classes of terminating programs, called k-safety, where the k-safe class strictly includes the (k-1)-safe class.

Recent years have witnessed an increasing interest in enhancing answer set solvers by allowing function symbols. Since the introduction of function symbols makes common inference tasks undecidable, research has focused on identifying classes of programs allowing only a restricted use of function symbols while ensuring decidability of common inference tasks. Finitely-ground programs, introduced in Calimeri et al. (2008), are guaranteed to admit a finite number of stable models with each of them of finite size. Stable models of such programs can be computed and thus common inference tasks become decidable. Unfortunately, checking whether a program is finitely-ground is semi-decidable. This has led to several decidable criteria, called termination criteria, providing sufficient conditions for a program to be finitely-ground. This paper presents a new technique that, used in conjunction with current termination criteria, allows us to detect more programs as finitely-ground. Specifically, the proposed technique takes a logic program ${\cal P}$ and transforms it into an adorned program ${{\cal P}}$μ with the aim of applying termination criteria to ${{\cal P}}$μ rather than ${\cal P}$. The transformation is sound in that if the adorned program satisfies a certain termination criterion, then the original program is finitely-ground. Importantly, applying termination criteria to adorned programs rather than the original ones strictly enlarges the class of programs recognized as finitely-ground.

Several extensions of the stable model semantics are available to describe ‘intensional’ functions—functions that can be described in terms of other functions and predicates by logic programs. Such functions are useful for expressing inertia and default behaviors of systems, and can be exploited for alleviating the grounding bottleneck involving functional fluents. However, the extensions were defined in different ways under different intuitions. In this paper we provide several reformulations of the extensions, and note that they are in fact closely related to each other and coincide on large syntactic classes of logic programs.

FS-rules provide a powerful monotonic extension for Horn clauses that supports monotonic aggregates in recursion by reasoning on the multiplicity of occurrences satisfying existential goals. The least fixpoint semantics, and its equivalent least model semantics, hold for logic programs with FS-rules; moreover, generalized notions of stratification and stable models are easily derived when negated goals are allowed. Finally, the generalization of techniques such as seminaive fixpoint and magic sets, make possible the efficient implementation of DatalogFS, i.e., Datalog with rules with Frequency Support (FS-rules) and stratified negation. A large number of applications that could not be supported efficiently, or could not be expressed at all in stratified Datalog can now be easily expressed and efficiently supported in DatalogFS and a powerful DatalogFS system is now being developed at UCLA.

A recent framework of relativized hyperequivalence of programs offers a unifying generalization of strong and uniform equivalence. It seems to be especially well suited for applications in program optimization and modular programming due to its flexibility that allows us to restrict, independently of each other, the head and body alphabets in context programs. We study relativized hyperequivalence for the three semantics of logic programs given by stable, supported, and supported minimal models. For each semantics, we identify four types of contexts, depending on whether the head and body alphabets are given directly or as the complement of a given set. Hyperequivalence relative to contexts where the head and body alphabets are specified directly has been studied before. In this paper, we establish the complexity of deciding relativized hyperequivalence with respect to the three other types of context programs.

We introduce and study logic programs whose clauses are built out of monotone constraint atoms. We show that the operational concept of the one-step provability operator generalizes to programs with monotone constraint atoms, but the generalization involves nondeterminism. Our main results demonstrate that our formalism is a common generalization of (1) normal logic programming with its semantics of models, supported models and stable models, (2) logic programming with weight atoms lparse programs) with the semantics of stable models, as defined by Niemelä, Simons and Soininen, and (3) of disjunctive logic programming with the possible-model semantics of Sakama and Inoue.

We propose and study algorithms to compute minimal models, stable models and answer sets of $t$-CNF theories, and normal and disjunctive $t$-programs. We are especially interested in algorithms with non-trivial worst-case performance bounds. The bulk of the paper is concerned with the classes of 2- and 3-CNF theories, and normal and disjunctive 2- and 3-programs, for which we obtain significantly stronger results than those implied by our general considerations. We show that one can find all minimal models of 2-CNF theories and all answer sets of disjunctive 2-programs in time $O(m1\mbox{.}4422\mbox{..}^n)$. Our main results concern computing stable models of normal 3-programs, minimal models of 3-CNF theories and answer sets of disjunctive 3-programs. We design algorithms that run in time $O(m1\mbox{.}6701\mbox{..}^n)$, in the case of the first problem, and in time $O(mn^2 2\mbox{.}2782\mbox{..}^n)$, in the case of the latter two. All these bounds improve by exponential factors the best algorithms known previously. We also obtain closely related upper bounds on the number of minimal models, stable models and answer sets a $t$-CNF theory, a normal $t$-program or a disjunctive $t$-program may have.

Abduction, first proposed in the setting of classical logics, has been studied with growing interest in the logic programming area during the last years. In this paper we study abduction with penalization in the logic programming framework. This form of abductive reasoning, which has not been previously analyzed in logic programming, turns out to represent several relevant problems, including optimization problems, very naturally. We define a formal model for abduction with penalization over logic programs, which extends the abductive framework proposed by Kakas and Mancarella. We address knowledge representation issues, encoding a number of problems in our abductive framework. In particular, we consider some relevant problems, taken from different domains, ranging from optimization theory to diagnosis and planning; their encodings turn out to be simple and elegant in our formalism. We thoroughly analyze the computational complexity of the main problems arising in the context of abduction with penalization from logic programs. Finally, we implement a system supporting the proposed abductive framework on top of the DLV engine. To this end, we design a translation from abduction problems with penalties into logic programs with weak constraints. We prove that this approach is sound and complete.

We compare two recent extensions of the answer set (stable model) semantics of logic programs. One of them, due to Lifschitz, Tang and Turner, allows the bodies and heads of rules to contain nested expressions. The other, due to Niemelä and Simons, uses weight constraints. We show that there is a simple, modular translation from the language of weight constraints into the language of nested expressions that preserves the program's answer sets. Nested expressions can be eliminated from the result of this translation in favor of additional atoms. The translation makes it possible to compute answer sets for some programs with weight constraints using satisfiability solvers, and to prove the strong equivalence of programs with weight constraints using the logic of here-and-there.

In this paper, we focus on the problem of existence and computing of small and large stable models. We show that for every fixed integer k, there is a linear-time algorithm to decide the problem LSM (large stable models problem): does a logic program P have a stable model of size at least [mid ]P[mid ]−k? In contrast, we show that the problem SSM (small stable models problem) to decide whether a logic program P has a stable model of size at most k is much harder. We present two algorithms for this problem but their running time is given by polynomials of order depending on k. We show that the problem SSM is fixed-parameter intractable by demonstrating that it is W[2]-hard. This result implies that it is unlikely an algorithm exists to compute stable models of size at most k that would run in time O(mc), where m is the size of the program and c is a constant independent of k. We also provide an upper bound on the fixed-parameter complexity of the problem SSM by showing that it belongs to the class W[3].

Some normal logic programs under the answer set (or stable model) semantics lack the appealing property of ‘cautious monotonicity.’ That is, augmenting a program with one of its consequences may cause it to lose another of its consequences. The syntactic condition of ‘order-consistency’ was shown by Fages to guarantee existence of an answer set. This note establishes that order-consistent programs are not only consistent, but cautiously monotonic. From this it follows that they are also ‘cumulative’. That is, augmenting an order-consistent program with some of its consequences does not alter its consequences. In fact, as we show, its answer sets remain unchanged.

In this paper we analyze declarative deterministic and non-deterministic semantics for active rules. In particular, we consider several (partial) stable model semantics, previously defined for deductive rules, such as well-founded, max deterministic, unique total stable model, total stable model and maximal stable model semantics. The semantics of an active program [Ascr ][Pscr ] is given by first rewriting it into a deductive program [Lscr ][Pscr ], then computing a model M defining the declarative semantics of [Lscr ][Pscr ] and, finally, applying ‘consistent’ updates contained in M to the source database. The framework we propose permits a natural integration of deductive and active rules and can also be applied to queries with function symbols or to queries over infinite databases.