Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Semantics of Disjunctive Logic Programs Based on Model-Equivalent Reduction

  • Short Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Computer Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, it is shown that stable model semantics, perfect model semantics, and partial stable model semantics of disjunctive logic programs have the same expressive power with respect to the polynomial-time model-equivalent reduction. That is, taking perfect model semantics and stable model semantic as an example, any logic program P can be transformed in polynomial time to another logic program P′ such that perfect models (resp. stable models) of P 1-1 correspond to stable models (resp. perfect models) of P′, and the correspondence can be computed also in polynomial time. However, the minimal model semantics has weaker expressiveness than other mentioned semantics, otherwise, the polynomial hierarchy would collapse to NP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gogic G, Kautz H, Papadimitriou C, Selman B. The comparative linguistics of knowledge representation. In Proc. Int. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’95), Montreal, Canada, 1995, pp.862–869.

  2. Janhunen T, Oikarinen E. Capturing parallel circumscription with disjunctive logic programs. In Proc. Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA’04), Lisbon, Portugal, 2004, pp.134–146.

  3. Xishun Zhao, H Kleine Büning. Model-equivalent reductions. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2005, 3569: 355–370.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Plaisted D, Greenbaum S. A structure preserving clause form transformation. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 1986, 2(3): 293–304.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Gelfond M, Przymusinska H, Ptzymusinki T. On the relationship between circumscription and negation as failure. Artificial Intelligence, 1989, 38(1): 75–94.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Lifschitz V. Circumscription. Handbook of Logic in AI and Logic Programming, Oxford University Press, 1994, 3: 298–352.

  7. Przymusinski T. On the Declarative and Procedural Semantics of Stratified Deductive Databases. Foundation of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, Morgan Kaufman, 1988, pp.193–216.

  8. Przymusinski T. Stable models for disjunctive programs. New Generation Computing, 1991, 9(3/4): 401–424.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gelfond M, Lifschitz V. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Proc. the 5th Int. Conf. Logic Programming, Seattle, USA, The MIT Press, 1988, pp.1070–1080.

  10. Gelfond M, Lifschitz V. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive database. New Generation Computing, 1991, 9(3/4): 365–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ferraris P, Lee J, Lifschitz V. A new perspective on stable models. In Proc. Int. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’07), Hyderabad, India, 2007, pp.372–379.

  12. Ferraris P, Lee J, Lifschitz V. A generalization of the Lin-Zhao theorem. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, to appear.

  13. Lin F, Zhou Y. From answer set programming to circumscription via logic of GK. In Proc. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’07), Hyderabad, India, 2007, pp.441–446.

  14. Lin F. A study of nonmonotonic reasoning [Dissertation]. Stanford University, 1991.

  15. Gottlob G. The complexity results for non-monotonic logics. J. Logic and Computation, 1992, 2(3): 397–425.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Ben-Eliyahu R, Dechter R. Propositional semantics for disjunctive logic programs. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 1994, 12(1/2): 53–87.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Eiter T, Gottlob G. On the computational cost of disjunctive logic programming: Propositional case. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 1995, 15(3/4): 289–323.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Egly U, Eiter T, Tompits H, Woltran S. Solving advanced reasoning tasks using quantified Boolean formulas. In Proc. National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’2000), Austin, USA, 2000, pp.417–422.

  19. Imielinski T. Results on translating defaults to circumscription. Artificial Intelligence, 1987, 32(1): 131–146.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Janhunen T. On the intertranslatability of non-monotonic logics. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 1999, 27(1–4): 79–128.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Janhunen T, Niemela I, Seipel D et al. Unfolding partiality and disjunctions in stable model semantics. ACM Trans. Computational Logic, 2006, 7(1): 1–37.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Lin F, Zhao Y. ASSAT: Computing answer sets of a logic program by SAT solvers. Artificial Intelligence, 2004, 157(1/2): 115–137.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Pearce D, Tompits H, Woltran S. Encodings for equilibrium logic and logic programs with nested expressions. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 2001, 2258: 306–320.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Leone N, Pfeifer G, Faber W et al. The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Trans. Computational Logic, 2006, 7(3): 499–562.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. McCarthy J. Circumscription — A form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 1986, 13(1/2): 89–116.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. H Kleine Büning, T Lettmann. Propositional Logic: Deduction and Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, 1999.

  27. Tseitin G S. On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus. Studies in Constructive Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, Part II, Silenko A O (ed.), 1970, pp.115–125.

  28. Lin F, Shoham Y. A logic of knowledge of justified assumptions. Artificial Intelligence, 1992, 57(2/3): 271–289.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Eiter T, Leone N, Saccà D. Expressive power and complexity of partial models for disjunctive databases. Theoretical Computer Science, 1998, 206(1/2): 181–218.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Jia-Huai You, Li-Yan Yuan. On the equivalence semantics for normal logic programs. J. Logic Programming, 1995, 22(3): 211–222.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Logic and Cognition, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, China

    Xi-Shun Zhao & Yu-Ping Shen

Authors
  1. Xi-Shun Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yu-Ping Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xi-Shun Zhao.

Additional information

This research was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 60573011, 10410638 and an MOE Project of Key Institute at Universities under Grant No. 05JJD72040122.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhao, XS., Shen, YP. Comparison of Semantics of Disjunctive Logic Programs Based on Model-Equivalent Reduction. J Comput Sci Technol 22, 562–568 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-007-9078-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-007-9078-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation