Towards implementations for advanced equivalence checking in answer-set programming

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Volumn 3668, Issue , 2005, Pages 189-203

  Tompits, Hans ^a   Woltran, Stefan ^a  

^a VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EQUIVALENCE CLASSES; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; INFERENCE ENGINES; POLYNOMIALS; PROBLEM SOLVING; SEMANTICS;

ANSWER-SET PROGRAMMING; COMPUTING PROGRAMS; EQUIVALENCE NOTIONS; POLYNOMIAL HIERARCHY;

COMPUTER SYSTEMS PROGRAMMING;

EID: 27144461180     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1007/11562931_16     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (28)

1. O. Arieli. Paraconsistent Preferential Reasoning by Signed Quantified Boolean Formulae. In Proc. ECAI'04, pages 773-777. IOS Press, 2004.
2. O. Arieli and M. Denecker. Reducing Preferential Paraconsistent Reasoning to Classical Entailment. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(4):557-580, 2003.
3. P. Besnard, T. Schaub, H. Tompits, and S. Woltran. Representing Paraconsistent Reasoning via Quantified Propositional Logic. In Inconsistency Tolerance, volume 3300 of LNCS, pages 84-118. Springer, 2005.
4. S. Coste-Marquis, H. Fargier, J. Lang, D. Le Berre, and P. Marquis. Function Problems for Quantified Boolean Formulas. Technical Report 2003-15-R, Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse (IRIT), 2003. Available at http://www.cril.univ-artois.fr/asqbf/pub/files/qbfeng7.pdf.
5. J. Delgrande, T. Schaub, H. Tompits, and S. Woltran. On Computing Solutions to Belief Change Scenarios. Journal of Logic and Computation, 14(6):801-826, 2004.
6. U. Egly, T. Eiter, H. Tompits, and S. Woltran. Solving Advanced Reasoning Tasks using Quantified Boolean Formulas. In Proc. AAAI'00, pages 417-422. AAAI Press/MIT Press, 2000.
7. U. Egly, R. Pichler, and S. Woltran. On Deciding Subsumption Problems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 43(1-4):255-294, 2005.
8. U. Egly, M. Seidl, H. Tompits, S. Woltran, and M. Zolda. Comparing Different Prenexing Strategies for Quantified Boolean Formulas. In Proc. SAT'03, Selected Revised Papers, volume 2919 of LNCS, pages 214-228. Springer, 2004.
9. T. Eiter, W. Faber, M. Fink, G. Pfeifer, and S. Woltran. Complexity of Answer Set Checking and Bounded Predicate Arities for Non-ground Answer Set Programming. In Proc. KR'04, pages 377-387. AAAI Press, 2004.
10. T. Eiter and M. Fink. Uniform Equivalence of Logic Programs under the Stable Model Semantics. In Proc. ICLP'03, number 2916 in LNCS, pages 224-238. Springer, 2003.
11. T. Eiter, M. Fink, and S. Woltran. Semantical Characterizations and Complexity of Equivalences in Answer Set Programming. Technical Report INFSYS RR-1843-05-01, Institut für Informationssysteme, Technische Universität Wien, Austria, 2005. To appear in ACM Transactions on Computational Logic.
12. T. Eiter, V. Klotz, H. Tompits, and S. Woltran. Modal Nonmonotonic Logics Revisited: Efficient Encodings for the Basic Reasoning Tasks. In Proc. TABLEAUX'02, volume 2381 of LNCS, pages 100-114. Springer, 2002.
13. T. Eiter, H. Tompits, and S. Woltran. On Solution Correspondences in Answer Set Programming. In Proc. UCAI'05, 2005.
14. M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. Classical Negation in Logic Programs and Disjunctive Data-bases. New Generation Computing, 9:365-385, 1991.
15. E. Giunchiglia, M. Narizzano, and A. Tacchella. Backjumping for Quantified Boolean Logic Satisfiability. Artificial Intelligence, 145:99-120, 2003.
16. D. Le Berre, M. Narizzano, L. Simon, and A. Tacchella. The Second QBF Solvers Comparative Evaluation, 2004. Available at http://www.qbflib.org/.
17. D. Le Berre, L. Simon, and A. Tacchella. Challenges in the QBF Arena: the SAT'03 Evaluation of QBF Solvers. In Proc. SAT'03, Selected Revised Papers, volume 2919 of LNCS, pages 468-485. Springer, 2004.
18. N. Leone, G. Pfeifer, W. Faber, T. Eiter, G. Gottlob, S. Perri, and F. Scarcello. The DLV System for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Technical Report cs.AI/0211004, arXiv.org. To appear in ACM Transactions on Computational Logic.
19. R. Letz. Lemma and Model Caching in Decision Procedures for Quantified Boolean Formulas. In Proc. TABLEAUX'02, volume 2381 of LNCS, pages 160-175. Springer, 2002.
20. V. Lifschitz, D. Pearce, and A. Valverde. Strongly Equivalent Logic Programs. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 2(4):526-541, 2001.
21. F. Lin. Reducing Strong Equivalence of Logic Programs to Entailment in Classical Propositional Logic. In Proc. KR'02, pages 170-176. Morgan Kaufmann, 2002.
22. F. Lin and Y. Zhao. ASSAT: Computing Answer Sets of a Logic Program by SAT Solvers. In Proc. AAAI'02, pages 112-117. AAAI Press / MIT Press, 2002.
23. E. Oikarinen and T. Janhunen. Verifying the Equivalence of Logic Programs in the Disjunctive Case. In Proc. LPNMR'04, volume 2923 of LNCS, pages 180-193. Springer, 2004.
24. D. Pearce, H. Tompits, and S. Woltran. Encodings for Equilibrium Logic and Logic Programs with Nested Expressions. In Proc. EPIA'01, volume 2258 of LNCS, pages 306-320. Springer, 2001.
25. J. Rintanen. Constructing Conditional Plans by a Theorem Prover. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 10:323-352, 1999.
26. P. Simons, I. Niemelä, and T. Soininen. Extending and Implementing the Stable Model Semantics. Artificial Intelligence, 138:181-234, 2002.
27. H. Turner. Strong Equivalence Made Easy: Nested Expressions and Weight Constraints. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 3(4-5):602-622, 2003.
28. S. Woltran. Characterizations for Relativized Notions of Equivalence in Answer Set Programming. In Proc. JELIA'04, volume 3229 of LNCS, pages 161-173. Springer, 2004.