The paper presents two equivalent definitions of answer sets for logic programs with aggregates. These definitions build on the notion of unfolding of aggregates, and they are aimed at creating methodologies to translate logic programs with aggregates to normal logic programs or positive programs, whose answer set semantics can be used to defined the semantics of the original programs. The first definition provides an alternative view of the semantics for logic programming with aggregates described by The second definition is similar to the traditional answer set definition for normal logic programs, in that, given a logic program with aggregates and an interpretation, the unfolding process produces a positive program. The paper shows how this definition can be extended to consider aggregates in the head of the rules. The proposed views of logic programming with aggregates are simple and coincide with the ultimate stable model semantics, and with other semantic characterizations for large classes of program (e.g., programs with monotone aggregates and programs that are aggregate-stratified). Moreover, it can be directly employed to support an implementation using available answer set solvers. The paper describes a system, called ASP^A, that is capable of computing answer sets of programs with arbitrary (e.g., recursively defined) aggregates.
The following example, used in @cite_22 to show that Smodels -semantics for weight constraints is counter-intuitive in some cases, indicates that the equivalence does not hold when negative literals are allowed in the weight constraint. ] According to the semantics described in @cite_36 , we can observe that, for @math , the reduct @math is @math making it an answer set of @math . For @math , the reduct @math is [ ] thus making @math an answer set of @math .
@cite_36 @cite_22
2011124182 1540263588 2004414305 2952621790
A novel logic program like language, weight constraint rules, is developed for answer set programming purposes. It generalizes normal logic programs by allowing weight constraints in place of literals to represent, e.g., cardinality and resource constraints and by providing optimization capabilities. A declarative semantics is developed which extends the stable model semantics of normal programs. The computational complexity of the language is shown to be similar to that of normal programs under the stable model semantics. A simple embedding of general weight constraint rules to a small subclass of the language called basic constraint rules is devised. An implementation of the language, the SMODELS system, is developed based on this embedding. It uses a two level architecture consisting of a front-end and a kernel language implementation. The front-end allows restricted use of variables and functions and compiles general weight constraint rules to basic constraint rules. A major part of the work is the development of an efficient search procedure for computing stable models for this kernel language. The procedure is compared with and empirically tested against satisfiability checkers and an implementation of the stable model semantics. It offers a competitive implementation of the stable model semantics for normal programs and attractive performance for problems where the new types of rules provide a compact representation. We investigate a generalization of weight-constraint programs with stable semantics, as implemented in the ASP solver smodels. Our programs admit atoms of the form ( X, F ) where X is a finite set of propositional atoms and ( F ) is an arbitrary family of subsets of X. We call such atoms set constaints and show that the concept of stable model can be generalized to programs admitting set constraints both in the bodies and the heads of clauses. Natural tools to investigate the fixpoint semantics for such programs are nondeterministic operators in complete lattices. We prove two fixpoint theorems for such operators. We propose a new translation from normal logic programs with constraints under the answer set semantics to propositional logic. Given a normal logic program, we show that by adding, for each loop in the program, a corresponding loop formula to the program's completion, we obtain a one-to-one correspondence between the answer sets of the program and the models of the resulting propositional theory. In the worst case, there may be an exponential number of loops in a logic program. To address this problem, we propose an approach that adds loop formulas a few at a time, selectively. Based on these results, we implement a system called ASSAT(X), depending on the SAT solver X used, for computing one answer set of a normal logic program with constraints. We test the system on a variety of benchmarks including the graph coloring, the blocks world planning, and Hamiltonian Circuit domains. Our experimental results show that in these domains, for the task of generating one answer set of a normal logic program, our system has a clear edge over the state-of-art answer set programming systems Smodels and DLV. Let @math be a nontrivial @math -ary predicate. Consider a random instance of the constraint satisfaction problem @math on @math variables with @math constraints, each being @math applied to @math randomly chosen literals. Provided the constraint density satisfies @math , such an instance is unsatisfiable with high probability. The problem is to efficiently find a proof of unsatisfiability. We show that whenever the predicate @math supports a @math - probability distribution on its satisfying assignments, the sum of squares (SOS) algorithm of degree @math (which runs in time @math ) refute a random instance of @math . In particular, the polynomial-time SOS algorithm requires @math constraints to refute random instances of CSP @math when @math supports a @math -wise uniform distribution on its satisfying assignments. Together with recent work of [LRS15], our result also implies that polynomial-size semidefinite programming relaxation for refutation requires at least @math constraints. Our results (which also extend with no change to CSPs over larger alphabets) subsume all previously known lower bounds for semialgebraic refutation of random CSPs. For every constraint predicate @math , they give a three-way hardness tradeoff between the density of constraints, the SOS degree (hence running time), and the strength of the refutation. By recent algorithmic results of [AOW15] and [RRS16], this full three-way tradeoff is , up to lower-order factors.