Abstract
In answer set programming (ASP), one does not allow the use of function symbols. Disallowing function symbols avoids the problem of having logic programs which have stable models of excessively high complexity. For example, Marek, Nerode, and Remmel showed that there exist finite predicate logic programs which have stable models but which have no hyperarithmetic stable model. Disallowing function symbols also avoids problems with the occurs check that can lead to wrong answers in logic programs. Of course, by eliminating function symbols, one loses a lot of expressive power in the language. In particular, it is difficult to directly reason about infinite sets in ASP.
Blair, Marek, and Remmel [BMR08] developed an extension of logic programming called set based logic programming. In the theory of set based logic programming, the atoms represent subsets of a fixed universe X and one is allowed to compose the one-step consequence operator with a monotonic idempotent operator (miop) O so as to ensure that the analogue of stable models are always closed under O. We let \(\mathcal{S}_P\) denote the set of fixed points of finite unions of the sets represented by the atoms of P under the miops associated with P. We shall show that if there is a coding scheme which associates to each element \(A \in \mathcal{S}_P\) a code c(A) such that there are effective procedures, which given two codes c(A) and c(B) of elements \(A,B \in \mathcal{S}_P\), will (i) decide if A ⊆ B, (ii) decide if A ∩ B = ∅, and (iii) produce the codes of the closures of A ∪ B and of A ∩ B under the miop operators associated with P, then we can effectively decide whether an element \(A \in \mathcal{S}_P\) is a stable model of P. Thus in such a situation, we can effectively reason about the stable models of P even though \(\mathcal{S}_P\) contains infinite sets. Our basic example is the case where all the sets represented by the atoms of P are regular languages but many other examples are possible such as when the sets involved are certain classes of convex sets in ℝn.
This is an updated and expanded version of [MR09].
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Apt, K., Blair, H.A.: Arithmetic Classification of Perfect Models of Stratified Programs. Fundamenta Informaticae 13, 1–17 (1990)
Babovich, Y., Lifschitz, V.: Cmodels (2002), http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/tag/cmodels.html
Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)
Bar-Hillel, Y., Perles, M.A., Shamir, E.: On formal properties of simple phrase structure grammars. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 14, 143–172 (1961)
Blair, H.A., Marek, V.W., Remmel, J.B.: Spatial Logic Programming. In: Proceedings SCI 2001, Orlando, FL (July 2001)
Blair, H.A., Marek, V.W., Remmel, J.B.: Set Based Logic Programming. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 52, 81–105 (2008)
Blair, H.A., Marek, V.W., Schlipf, J.S.: The Expressivness of Locally Stratified Programs. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 15, 209–229 (1995)
Blumensath, A., Grädel, E.: Automatic Structures. In: Proceedings of the 15th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS 2000, pp. 51–62 (2000)
Denecker, M.: Extending classical logic with inductive definitions. In: Palamidessi, C., Moniz Pereira, L., Lloyd, J.W., Dahl, V., Furbach, U., Kerber, M., Lau, K.-K., Sagiv, Y., Stuckey, P.J. (eds.) CL 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1861, pp. 703–717. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Dowling, W.F., Gallier, J.H.: Linear-time algorithms for testing satisfiability of propositional Horn formulae. Journal of Logic Programming 3, 267–284 (1984)
Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Neumann, A., Schaub, T.: clasp – a Conflict-driven Answer Set Solver. In: Baral, C., Brewka, G., Schlipf, J. (eds.) LPNMR 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4483, pp. 260–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Heljanko, K., Niemelä, I.: Bounded LTL model checking with stable models. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3, 519–550 (2003)
Gelfond, M., Leone, N.: Logic Programming and Knowledge Representation – A-Prolog perspective. Artificial Intelligence Journal 138, 3–38 (2002)
Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)
Giunchiglia, E., Lierer, Y., Maratea, M.: Answer Set Programming Based on Propositional Satisfiability. Journal of Automated Reasoning 36, 345–377 (2006)
Khoussainov, B., Nerode, A.: Automatic Presentations of Structures. In: Leivant, D. (ed.) LCC 1994. LNCS, vol. 960, pp. 367–392. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)
Khoussainov, B., Nies, A., Rubin, S., Stephan, F.: Automatic structures: richness and limitations. Logical Methods of Computer Science 3(2), 18(electronic) (2007)
Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., Scarcello, F.: The dlv system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 7, 499–562 (2006)
Lifschitz, V.: Minimal belief and negation as failure. Artificial Intelligence Journal 70, 53–72 (1994)
Lin, F., Zhao, Y.: ASSAT: Computing answer sets of a logic program by SAT solvers. In: Proceedings of the 18th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2002), pp. 112–117. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2002)
Marek, W., Nerode, A., Remmel, J.B.: The stable models of predicate logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming 21(3), 129–154 (1994)
Marek, V.W., Remmel, J.B.: Automata and Answer Set Programming. In: Artemov, S., Nerode, A. (eds.) LFCS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5407, pp. 323–337. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Marek, W., Truszczyński, M.: Nonmonotonic Logic – Context-Dependent Reasoning. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)
Marek, V.W., Truszczyński, M.: Stable Models and an Alternative Logic Programming Paradigm. In: The Logic Programming Paradigm. AI, pp. 375–398. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Niemelä, I.: Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25, 241–273 (1999)
Simons, P., Niemelä, I., Soininen, T.: Extending and implementing stable semantics of logic programs. Artificial Intelligence Journal 138, 181–234 (2002)
Soininen, T., Niemelä, I., Tiihonen, J., Sulonen, R.: Representing Configuration Knowledge with Weight Constraint Rules. In: Answer Set Programming 2001 (2001)
Smullyan, R.: First-order Logic. Springer, Heidelberg (1968)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Marek, V., Remmel, J.B. (2011). Effectively Reasoning about Infinite Sets in Answer Set Programming. In: Balduccini, M., Son, T.C. (eds) Logic Programming, Knowledge Representation, and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6565. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20832-4_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20832-4_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-20831-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-20832-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)