Towards Implementations for Advanced Equivalence Checking in Answer-Set Programming

In recent work, a general framework for specifying program correspondences under the answer-set semantics has been defined. The framework allows to define different notions of equivalence, including the well-known notions of strong and uniform equivalence, as well as refined equivalence notions based on the projection of answer sets, where not all parts of an answer set are of relevance (like, e.g., removal of auxiliary letters). In the general case, deciding the correspondence of two programs lies on the fourth level of the polynomial hierarchy and therefore this task can (presumably) not be efficiently reduced to answer-set programming. In this paper, we describe an approach to compute program correspondences in this general framework by means of linear-time constructible reductions to quantified propositional logic. We can thus use extant solvers for the latter language as back-end inference engines for computing program correspondence problems. We also describe how our translations provide a method to construct counterexamples in case a program correspondence does not hold.

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

[2]  Wolfgang Faber,et al.  The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning , 2002, TOCL.

[3]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Semantical characterizations and complexity of equivalences in answer set programming , 2005, TOCL.

[4]  Fangzhen Lin,et al.  ASSAT: computing answer sets of a logic program by SAT solvers , 2002, Artif. Intell..

[5]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Comparing Different Prenexing Strategies for Quantified Boolean Formulas , 2003, SAT.

[6]  Fangzhen Lin.  Reducing Strong Equivalence of Logic Programs to Entailment in Classical Propositional Logic , 2002, KR.

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

[8]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  On Computing Belief Change Operations using Quantified Boolean Formulas , 2004, J. Log. Comput..

[9]  Daniel Le Berre,et al.  Function problems for Quantified Boolean Formulas , 2003 .

[10]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Encodings for Equilibrium Logic and Logic Programs with Nested Expressions , 2001, EPIA.

[11]  Thomas Eiter,et al.  Uniform Equivalence of Logic Programs under the Stable Model Semantics , 2003, ICLP.

[12]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  On Solution Correspondences in Answer-Set Programming , 2005, IJCAI.

[13]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Solving Advanced Reasoning Tasks Using Quantified Boolean Formulas , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

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

[15]  Jussi Rintanen,et al.  Constructing Conditional Plans by a Theorem-Prover , 1999, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[16]  Tomi Janhunen,et al.  Verifying the Equivalence of Logic Programs in the Disjunctive Case , 2004, LPNMR.

[17]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  On Computing Solutions to Belief Change Scenarios , 2001, ECSQARU.

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

[19]  Armando Tacchella,et al.  The Second QBF Solvers Comparative Evaluation , 2004, SAT (Selected Papers.

[20]  Armando Tacchella,et al.  Backjumping for Quantified Boolean Logic satisfiability , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Wolfgang Faber,et al.  Complexity of Model Checking and Bounded Predicate Arities for Non-ground Answer Set Programming , 2004, KR.

[22]  Wolfgang Faber,et al.  Complexity of Answer Set Checking and Bounded Predicate Arities for Non-ground Answer Set Programming , 2003, Answer Set Programming.

[23]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Representing Paraconsistent Reasoning via Quantified Propositional Logic , 2005, Inconsistency Tolerance.

[24]  Ofer Arieli,et al.  Reducing Preferential Paraconsistent Reasoning to Classical Entailment , 2003, Journal of Logic and Computation.

[25]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Characterizations for Relativized Notions of Equivalence in Answer Set Programming , 2004, JELIA.

[26]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  On deciding subsumption problems , 2005, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[27]  Armando Tacchella,et al.  Challenges in the QBF Arena: the SAT'03 Evaluation of QBF Solvers , 2003, SAT.

[28]  Ofer Arieli,et al.  Paraconsistent Preferential Reasoning by Signed Quantified Boolean Formulae , 2004, ECAI.

[29]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Modal Nonmonotonic Logics Revisited: Efficient Encodings for the Basic Reasoning Tasks , 2002, TABLEAUX.

[30]  Reinhold Letz,et al.  Lemma and Model Caching in Decision Procedures for Quantified Boolean Formulas , 2002, TABLEAUX.