Answer-set programming (ASP) has emerged recently as a viable programming paradigm well attuned to search problems in AI, constraint satisfaction and combinatorics. Propositional logic is, arguably, the simplest ASP system with an intuitive semantics supporting direct modeling of problem constraints. However, for some applications, especially those requiring that transitive closure be computed, it requires additional variables and results in large theories. Consequently, it may not be a practical computational tool for such problems. On the other hand, ASP systems based on nonmonotonic logics, such as stable logic programming, can handle transitive closure computation efficiently and, in general, yield very concise theories as problem representations. Their semantics is, however, more complex. Searching for the middle ground, in this paper we introduce a new nonmonotonic logic, DATALOG with constraints or DC. Informally, DC theories consist of propositional clauses (constraints) and of Horn rules. The semantics is a simple and natural extension of the semantics of the propositional logic. However, thanks to the presence of Horn rules in the system, modeling of transitive closure becomes straightforward. We describe the syntax and semantics of DC, and study its properties. We discuss an implementation of DC and present results of experimental study of the effectiveness of DC, comparing it with the csat satisfiability checker and smodels implementation of stable logic programming. Our results show that DC is competitive with the other two approaches, in case of many search problems, often yielding much more efficient solutions. Content Areas: constraint saitsfaction, search, knowledge representation, logic programming, nonmonotonic
[1]
Bart Selman,et al.
Encoding Plans in Propositional Logic
,
1996,
KR.
[2]
Jacques Carlier,et al.
SAT versus UNSAT
,
1993,
Cliques, Coloring, and Satisfiability.
[3]
Bart Selman,et al.
Pushing the Envelope: Planning, Propositional Logic and Stochastic Search
,
1996,
AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 2.
[4]
Victor W. Marek,et al.
Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm
,
1998,
The Logic Programming Paradigm.
[5]
Georg Gottlob,et al.
Default Logic as a Query Language
,
1997,
IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..
[6]
Ilkka Niemelä,et al.
Efficient Implementation of the Well-founded and Stable Model Semantics
,
1996,
JICSLP.
[7]
Bart Selman,et al.
Planning as Satisfiability
,
1992,
ECAI.
[8]
Victor W. Marek,et al.
Default Reasoning System DeReS
,
1996,
KR.
[9]
Victor W. Marek,et al.
Computing with Default Logic
,
1999,
Artif. Intell..
[10]
Vladimir Lifschitz,et al.
Action Languages, Answer Sets, and Planning
,
1999,
The Logic Programming Paradigm.
[11]
Danny De Schreye,et al.
Answer Set Planning
,
1999
.
[12]
Gerald Pfeifer,et al.
The KR System dlv: Progress Report, Comparisons and Benchmarks
,
1998,
KR.
[13]
Patrik Simons,et al.
Extending the Stable Model Semantics with More Expressive Rules
,
1999,
LPNMR.
[14]
John S. Schlipf,et al.
The Expressive Powers of the Logic Programming Semantics
,
1995,
J. Comput. Syst. Sci..
[15]
Victor W. Marek,et al.
The Logic Programming Paradigm: A 25-Year Perspective
,
2011
.