On the relation between answer set and SAT procedures (or, between CMODELS and SMODELS)

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Volumn 3668, Issue , 2005, Pages 37-51

  Giunchiglia, Enrico ^a   Maratea, Marco ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GENOA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATION THEORY; HEURISTIC PROGRAMMING; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROBLEM SOLVING; SEARCH ENGINES; SET THEORY; TREES (MATHEMATICS);

ANSWER SET PROGRAMMING (ASP); SEARCH PROBLEMS; SEARCH TREES; SOLVERS;

COMPUTER SYSTEMS PROGRAMMING;

EID: 27144532406     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1007/11562931_6     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. E. Giunchiglia, M. Maratea, A. Tacchella, and D. Zambonin. Evaluating search heuristics and optimization techniques in prepositional satisfiability. In Proc. IJCAR, 2001.
2. E. Giunchiglia, M. Maratea, and Y. Lierler. SAT-based answer set programming. In Proc. AAAI, 2004.
3. T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson,R. L. Rivest and C. Stein Introduction to Algorithms. MIT Press, 2001.
4. François Fages. Consistency of Clark's completion and existence of stable models. Journal of Methods of Logic in Computer Science, 1:51-60, 1994.
5. Yu. Babovich and V. Lifschitz. Computing Answer Sets Using Program Completion. Available at http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/tag/cmodels/cmodels-1. ps, 2003.
6. F. Lin and Y. Zhao ASSAT: Computing answer sets of a logic program by SAT solvers. In Proc. AAAI, 2002.
7. P. Simons. Extending and implementing the stable model semantics. PhD Thesis, 2000.
8. Jeffrey Ward and John S. Schlipf. Answer set programming with clause learning. In Proc. LPNMR, 2004.
9. Haken. The intractability of resolution. TCS, 39:297-308, 1985.
10. V. Chvátal and E. Szemerédi. Many hard examples for resolution. J. ACM, 35(4):759-768, 1988.
11. W. Faber, N. Leone, and G. Pfeifer. Experimenting with heuristics for ASP. In Proc. IJCAI, 2001.
12. P. Simons, I. Niemelä, and S. Timo. Extending and implementing the stable model semantics. Artificial Intelligence, 138(1-2): 181-234, 2002.
13. Paolo Liberalere. On the complexity of choosing the branching literal in DPLL. Artificial Intelligence, 116(1-2):315-326, 2000.
14. Rémi Monasson. On the analysis of backtrack procedures for the coloring of random graphs. In Complex Networks, Lecture Notes in Physics, pages 232-251. Springer, 2004.
15. D. Achlioptas, P. Beame, and M. Molloy. A sharp threshold in proof complexity. In Proc. STOC, pages 337-346, 2001.
16. Chu Min Li and Anbulagan. Heuristics based on unit propagation for satisfiability problems. In Proc. IJCAI, 1997.
17. M. Moskewicz, C. Madigan, Y. Zhao, L. Zhang, and S. Malik. Chaff: Engineering an Efficient SAT Solver. In Proc. DAC, 2001.
18. D. Le Berre and L. Simon. The essentials of the SAT'03 competition. In Proc. SAT, 2003.
19. Fangzhen Lin and Yuting Zhao. ASP phase transition: A study on randomly generated programs. In Proc. ICLP, 2003.
20. I. Niemelä Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. In Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 25:241-273, 1999.
21. H. Dixon, M. Ginsberg, E. Luks, and A. Parkes. Generalizing Boolean satisfiability II: Theory. JAIR, 22:481-534, 2004.
22. P. Borchert, C. Anger, T. Schaub, and M. Truszczynski. Towards systematic benchmarking in answer set programming: The dagstuhl initiative. In Proc. LPNMR, 2004.