Beyond Uniform Equivalence between Answer-set Programs
Beyond Uniform Equivalence between Answer-set Programs
Oetsch, Johannes; Seidl, Martina; Tompits, Hans; Woltran, Stefan
2020-12-02 00:00:00
This article deals with advanced notions of equivalence between nonmonotonic logic programs under the answer-set semantics, a topic of considerable interest, because such notions form the basis for program verification and are useful for program optimisation, debugging, and modular programming. In fact, there is extensive research in answer-set programming (ASP) dealing with different notions of equivalence between programs. Prominent among these notions is uniform equivalence, which checks whether two programs have the same semantics when joined with an arbitrary set of facts. In this article, we study a family of more fine-grained versions of uniform equivalence, viz. relativised uniform equivalence with projection, which extends standard uniform equivalence in terms of two additional parameters: one for specifying the input alphabet and one for specifying the output alphabet for programs. In particular, the second parameter is used for projecting answer sets to a set of designated output atoms. Answer-set projection, in particular, allows to compare programs that make use of different auxiliary atoms, which is important for practical programming aspects. We introduce novel semantic characterisations for the program correspondence problems under consideration and analyse their computational complexity. In the general case, deciding these problems lies on the third level of the polynomial hierarchy. Therefore, this task cannot be efficiently reduced to propositional answer-set programs itself (under the usual complexity-theoretic assumptions). However, reductions to quantified Boolean formulas (QBFs) are feasible. Indeed, we provide efficient (in fact, linear-time constructible) reductions to QBFs and discuss simplifications for certain special cases. These QBF reductions yield the basis for a prototype implementation, the system cc ⊤, for deciding correspondence problems by using off-the-shelf QBF solvers. We discuss an application of cc ⊤ for verifying the correctness of solutions by students drawn from a laboratory course on logic programming and knowledge representation at the Technische Universität Wien, employing relativised uniform equivalence with projection as the underlying program correspondence notion.
http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.pngACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL)Association for Computing Machineryhttp://www.deepdyve.com/lp/association-for-computing-machinery/beyond-uniform-equivalence-between-answer-set-programs-ZI2Ziw3Hkw
Beyond Uniform Equivalence between Answer-set Programs
This article deals with advanced notions of equivalence between nonmonotonic logic programs under the answer-set semantics, a topic of considerable interest, because such notions form the basis for program verification and are useful for program optimisation, debugging, and modular programming. In fact, there is extensive research in answer-set programming (ASP) dealing with different notions of equivalence between programs. Prominent among these notions is uniform equivalence, which checks whether two programs have the same semantics when joined with an arbitrary set of facts. In this article, we study a family of more fine-grained versions of uniform equivalence, viz. relativised uniform equivalence with projection, which extends standard uniform equivalence in terms of two additional parameters: one for specifying the input alphabet and one for specifying the output alphabet for programs. In particular, the second parameter is used for projecting answer sets to a set of designated output atoms. Answer-set projection, in particular, allows to compare programs that make use of different auxiliary atoms, which is important for practical programming aspects. We introduce novel semantic characterisations for the program correspondence problems under consideration and analyse their computational complexity. In the general case, deciding these problems lies on the third level of the polynomial hierarchy. Therefore, this task cannot be efficiently reduced to propositional answer-set programs itself (under the usual complexity-theoretic assumptions). However, reductions to quantified Boolean formulas (QBFs) are feasible. Indeed, we provide efficient (in fact, linear-time constructible) reductions to QBFs and discuss simplifications for certain special cases. These QBF reductions yield the basis for a prototype implementation, the system cc ⊤, for deciding correspondence problems by using off-the-shelf QBF solvers. We discuss an application of cc ⊤ for verifying the correctness of solutions by students drawn from a laboratory course on logic programming and knowledge representation at the Technische Universität Wien, employing relativised uniform equivalence with projection as the underlying program correspondence notion.
Journal
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL)
– Association for Computing Machinery
Published: Dec 2, 2020
Keywords: Answer-set programming
Recommended Articles
Loading...
References
Complexity of super-coherence problems in ASP
Alviano, Mario; Faber, Wolfgang; Woltran, Stefan
Paraconsistent preferential reasoning by signed quantified Boolean formulae
Arieli, Ofer
Caminada
Arieli, Ofer; Ã, Martin W.
Reducing preferential paraconsistent reasoning to classical entailment
Arieli, Ofer; Denecker, Marc
Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and Declarative Problem Solving
Baral, Chitta
Reasoning agents in dynamic domains
Baral, Chitta; Fredman, Michael L.
Extracting certificates from quantified boolean formulas
Benedetti, Marco
sKizzo: A suite to evaluate and certify QBFs
Benedetti, Marco
Encoding deductive argumentation in quantified Boolean formulae
Besnard, Philippe; Hunter, Anthony; Woltran, Stefan
Representing paraconsistent reasoning via quantified propositional logic
Besnard, Philippe; Schaub, Torsten; Tompits, Hans; Woltran, Stefan
Equivalence between answer-set programs under (partially) fixed input
Bliem, Bernhard; Woltran, Stefan
TOAST: Applying answer set programming to superoptimisation
Brain, Martin; Crick, Tom; De Vos, Marina; Fitch, John
Inferring phylogenetic trees using answer set programming
Brooks, Daniel R.; Erdem, Esra; Erdogan, Selim T.; Minett, James W.; Ringe, Donald
SELP - A system for studying strong equivalence between logic programs
Chen, Yin; Lin, Fangzhen; Li, Lei
On computing belief change operations using quantified Boolean formulas
Delgrande, James P.; Schaub, Torsten; Tompits, Hans; Woltran, Stefan
Belief revision of logic programs under answer set semantics
Delgrande, James P.; Schaub, Torsten; Tompits, Hans; Woltran, Stefan
Solving advanced reasoning tasks using quantified Boolean formulas
Egly, Uwe; Eiter, Thomas; Tompits, Hans; Woltran, Stefan
Comparing different prenexing strategies for quantified Boolean formulas
Egly, Uwe; Seidl, Martina; Tompits, Hans; Woltran, Stefan; Zolda, Michael
To get new article updates from a journal on your personalized homepage, please log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.