Abstract not found

Abstract. This paper describes a system called SELP for studying strong equivalence in answer set logic programming. The basic function of the system is to check if two given ground disjunctive logic programs are equivalent, and if not, return a counter-example. This allows us to investigate some interesting properties of strong equivalence, such as a complete characterization for a rule to be strongly equivalent to another one, and checking whether a given set of rules is strongly equivalent to another, perhaps simpler set of rules. 1

In this paper we provide a logical framework for using computers to discover theorems in two-person finite games in strategic form, and apply it to discover classes of games that have unique pure Nash equilibrium payoffs. We consider all possible classes of games that can be expressed by a conjunction of two binary clauses, and our program rediscovered Kats and Thisse’s class of weakly unilaterally competitive two-person games, and came up with several other classes of games that have unique pure Nash equilibrium payoffs. It also came up with new classes of strict games that have unique pure Nash equilibria, where a game is strict if for both player different profiles have different payoffs.

Abstract. bb We consider the problem of obtaining a minimal logic program strongly equivalent (under the stable models semantics) to a given arbitrary propositional theory. We propose a method consisting in the generation of the set of prime implicates of the original theory, starting from its set of countermodels (in the logic of Here-and-There), in a similar vein to the Quine-McCluskey method for minimisation of boolean functions. As a side result, we also provide several results about fundamental rules (those that are not tautologies and do not contain redundant literals) which are combined to build the minimal programs. In particular, we characterise their form, their corresponding sets of countermodels, as well as necessary and sufficient conditions for entailment and equivalence among them.

Recent research in nonmonotonic logic programming has focused on certain types of program equivalence, which we refer to here as hyperequivalence, that are relevant for program optimization and modular programming. So far, most results concern hyperequivalence relative to the stable-model semantics. However, other semantics for logic programs are also of interest, especially the semantics of supported models which, when properly generalized, is closely related to the autoepistemic logic of Moore. In this paper, we consider a family of hyperequivalence relations for programs based on the semantics of supported and supported minimal models. We characterize these relations in model-theoretic terms. We use the characterizations to derive complexity results concerning testing whether two programs are hyperequivalent relative to supported and supported minimal models.

Abstract. Given two classes of logic programs, we may be interested in modular translations from one class into the other that are sound wth respect to the answer set semantics. The main theorem of this paper characterizes the existence of such a translation in terms of strong equivalence. The theorem is used to study the expressiveness of several classes of programs, including the comparison of cardinality constraints with monotone cardinality atoms. 1

Abstract. aa We consider the problem of obtaining a minimal logic program strongly equivalent (under the stable models semantics) to a given arbitrary propositional theory. We propose a method consisting in the generation of the set of prime implicates of the original theory, starting from its set of countermodels (in the logic of Here-and-There), in a similar vein to the Quine-McCluskey method for minimisation of boolean functions. As a side result, we also provide several results about fundamental rules (those that are not tautologies and do not contain redundant literals) which are combined to build the minimal programs. In particular, we characterise their form, their corresponding sets of countermodels, as well as necessary and sufficient conditions for entailment and equivalence among them.

This paper proposes a notion of finitely-verifiable classes of sentences. Informally, a class of sentences is finitely-verifiable if whether a sentence in this class is a theorem of a given theory can be checked with respect to a finite set of models of the theory. The usefulness of this notion is illustrated using examples from arithmetics, first-order logic, game theory, and planning.

Abstract. We extend to disjunctive logic programs our previous work on computing loop formulas of loops with at most one external support. We show that for these logic programs, loop formulas of loops with no external support can be computed in polynomial time, and if the given program has no constraints, an iterative procedure based on these formulas, the program completion, and unit propagation computes the least fixed point of a simplification operator used by DLV. We also relate loops with no external supports to the unfounded sets and the well-founded semantics of disjunctive logic programs by Wang and Zhou. However, the problem of computing loop formulas of loops with at most one external support rule is NP-hard for disjunctive logic programs. We thus propose a polynomial algorithm for computing some of these loop formulas, and show experimentally that this polynomial approximation algorithm can be effective in practice. 1

Abstract. aa We consider the problem of obtaining a minimal logic program strongly equivalent (under the stable models semantics) to a given arbitrary propositional theory. We propose a method consisting in the generation of the set of prime implicates of the original theory, starting from its set of countermodels (in the logic of Here-and-There), in a similar vein to the Quine-McCluskey method for minimisation of boolean functions. As a side result, we also provide several results about fundamental rules (those that are not tautologies and do not contain redundant literals) which are combined to build the minimal programs. In particular, we characterise their form, their corresponding sets of countermodels, as well as necessary and sufficient conditions for entailment and equivalence among them.