Answer Sets for Propositional Theories

Equilibrium logic, introduced by David Pearce, extends the concept of an answer set from logic programs to arbitrary sets of formulas. Logic programs correspond to the special case in which every formula is a “rule” — an implication that has no implications in the antecedent (body) and consequent (head). The semantics of equilibrium logic looks very different from the usual definitions of an answer set in logic programming, as it is based on Kripke models. In this paper we propose a new definition of equilibrium logic which uses the concept of a reduct, as in the standard definition of an answer set. Second, we apply the generalized concept of an answer set to the problem of defining the semantics of aggregates in answer set programming. We propose, in particular, a semantics for weight constraints that covers the problematic case of negative weights. Our semantics of aggregates is an extension of the approach due to Faber, Leone, and Pfeifer to a language with choice rules and, more generally, arbitrary rules with nested expressions.

[1]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Complexity Results for Disjunctive Logic Programming and Application to Nonmonotonic Logics , 1993, ILPS.

[2]  Hudson Turner,et al.  Strong equivalence made easy: nested expressions and weight constraints , 2003, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[3]  Vladimir Lifschitz,et al.  Definitions in Answer Set Programming: (Extended Abstract) , 2003, ICLP.

[4]  David Pearce,et al.  From Here to There: Stable Negation in Logic Programming , 1999 .

[5]  Wolfgang Faber,et al.  Recursive Aggregates in Disjunctive Logic Programs: Semantics and Complexity , 2004, JELIA.

[6]  Ilkka Niemelä,et al.  Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning 7th International Conference, Lpnmr 2004, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., January 6-8, 2004 : Proceedings , 2004 .

[7]  Jürgen Dix,et al.  Non-Monotonic Extensions of Logic Programming , 1996, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[8]  David Pearce,et al.  Strongly equivalent logic programs , 2001, ACM Trans. Comput. Log..

[9]  Mauricio Osorio,et al.  Safe beliefs for propositional theories , 2005, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

[10]  J. Lloyd Foundations of Logic Programming , 1984, Symbolic Computation.

[11]  Timo Soininen,et al.  Extending and implementing the stable model semantics , 2000, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Vladimir Lifschitz,et al.  Weight constraints as nested expressions , 2003, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[13]  I. Niemelä,et al.  Extending the Smodels system with cardinality and weight constraints , 2001 .

[14]  S. Shelah,et al.  Annals of Pure and Applied Logic , 1991 .

[15]  D. Gabbay,et al.  What is Negation , 1999 .

[16]  Vladimir Lifschitz,et al.  Splitting a Logic Program , 1994, ICLP.

[17]  David Pearce,et al.  A New Logical Characterisation of Stable Models and Answer Sets , 1996, NMELP.

[18]  G. Brewka Principles of Knowledge Representation , 1996 .

[19]  Wolfgang Faber,et al.  Declarative and Computational Properties of Logic Programs with Aggregates , 2005, IJCAI.

[20]  Vladimir Lifschitz,et al.  Nested expressions in logic programs , 1999, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[21]  TurnerHudson Strong equivalence made easy: nested expressions and weight constraints , 2003 .

[22]  Pedro Cabalar,et al.  Propositional theories are strongly equivalent to logic programs , 2007, Theory Pract. Log. Program..

[23]  David Pearce,et al.  Reducing Propositional Theories in Equilibrium Logic to Logic Programs , 2005, Answer Set Programming.