Abstract
Propositional satisfiability (SAT) solvers provide a promising computational platform for logic programs under the stable model semantics. However, computing stable models of a logic program using a SAT solver presumes translating the program into a set of clauses which is the input form accepted by most SAT solvers. This leads to fairly complex super-linear translations. There are, however, interesting extensions to plain clausal propositional representations such as difference logic. A number of solvers have been developed for difference logic, in particular in the context of the satisfiability modulo theories (SMT) framework, and the goal of the paper is to study whether such engines could be harnessed to the computation of stable models for logic programs in an effective way. To this end, we provide succinct translations from logic programs to theories of difference logic and evaluate the potential of SMT solvers in the computation of stable models using these translations and a selection of benchmarks.
A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the Second International Workshop on Logic and Search (LaSh 2008). This research has been partially funded by the Academy of Finland under project #122399.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: ICLP, pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)
Lifschitz, V.: Answer set planning. In: ICLP, pp. 23–37. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)
Marek, V., Truszczyński, M.: Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In: The Logic Programming Paradigm: a 25-Year Perspective, pp. 375–398. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Niemelä, I.: Logic programming with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 25(3-4), 241–273 (1999)
Simons, P., Niemelä, I., Soininen, T.: Extending and implementing the stable model semantics. Artificial Intelligence 138(1-2), 181–234 (2002)
Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Scarcello, F.: The DLV System for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. ACM TOCL 7(3), 499–562 (2006)
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)
Clark, K.: Negation as failure. In: Logic and Data Bases, pp. 293–322. Plenum Press (1978)
Erdem, E., Lifschitz, V.: Tight logic programs. TPLP 3(4-5), 499–518 (2003)
Lin, F., Zhao, Y.: ASSAT: computing answer sets of a logic program by SAT solvers. AIJ 157(1-2), 115–137 (2004)
Lierler, Y.: Cmodels – SAT-based disjunctive answer set solver. In: Baral, C., Greco, G., Leone, N., Terracina, G. (eds.) LPNMR 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3662, pp. 447–451. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Giunchiglia, E., Lierler, Y., Maratea, M.: Answer set programming based on propositional satisfiability. Journal of Automated Reasoning 36(4), 345–377 (2006)
Ben-Eliyahu, R., Dechter, R.: Propositional Semantics for Disjunctive Logic Programs. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 12(1-2), 53–87 (1994)
Lin, F., Zhao, J.: On tight logic programs and yet another translation from normal logic programs to propositional logic. In: IJCAI, pp. 853–858 (2003)
Janhunen, T.: Representing normal programs with clauses. In: ECAI, pp. 358–362. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)
Niemelä, I.: Stable models and difference logic. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 53(1-4), 313–329 (2008)
Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A.: DPLL(T) with exhaustive theory propagation and its application to difference logic. In: Etessami, K., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) CAV 2005. LNCS, vol. 3576, pp. 321–334. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Bozzano, M., Bruttomesso, R., Cimatti, A., Junttila, T., van Rossum, P., Schulz, S., Sebastiani, R.: MathSAT: Tight integration of sat and mathematical decision procedures. Journal of Automated Reasoning 35(1-3), 265–293 (2005)
Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Tinelli, C.: Solving SAT and SAT Modulo Theories: From an abstract Davis–Putnam–Logemann–Loveland procedure to DPLL(T). J. ACM 53(6), 937–977 (2006)
Cotton, S., Maler, O.: Fast and flexible difference constraint propagation for DPLL(T). In: Biere, A., Gomes, C.P. (eds.) SAT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4121, pp. 170–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Apt, K., Blair, H., Walker, A.: Towards a theory of declarative knowledge. In: Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pp. 89–148. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1988)
Marek, V.W., Subrahmanian, V.S.: The relationship between stable, supported, default and autoepistemic semantics for general logic programs. TCS 103, 365–386 (1992)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I., Sevalnev, M. (2009). Computing Stable Models via Reductions to Difference Logic. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds) Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. LPNMR 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5753. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04238-6_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04238-6_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-04237-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-04238-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)