In this paper, we present a framework for the semantics and the computation of aggregates in the context of logic programming. In our study, an aggregate can be an arbitrary interpreted second order predicate or function. We define extensions of the Kripke-Kleene, the well-founded and the stable semantics for aggregate programs. The semantics is based on the concept of a three-valued immediate consequence operator of an aggregate program. Such an operator approximates the standard two-valued immediate consequence operator of the program, and induces a unique Kripke-Kleene model, a unique well-founded model and a collection of stable models. We study different ways of defining such operators and thus obtain a framework of semantics, offering different trade-offs between precision and tractability. In particular, we investigate conditions on the operator that guarantee that the computation of the three types of semantics remains on the same level as for logic programs without aggregates. Other results show that, in practice, even efficient three-valued immediate consequence operators which are very low in the precision hierarchy, still provide optimal precision.
Another proposal for a stable semantics of disjunctive logic programs extended with aggregates was given in @cite_27 . In the sequel we investigate in more detail the relationship with this semantics to the family of @math -stable semantics defined earlier. First, we recall the definitions of the stable semantics of @cite_27 .
@cite_27
2105869173
The addition of aggregates has been one of the most relevant enhancements to the language of answer set programming (ASP). They strengthen the modeling power of ASP, in terms of concise problem representations. While many important problems can be encoded using nonrecursive aggregates, some relevant examples lend themselves for the use of recursive aggregates. Previous semantic definitions typically agree in the nonrecursive case, but the picture is less clear for recursion. Some proposals explicitly avoid recursive aggregates, most others differ, and many of them do not satisfy desirable criteria, such as minimality or coincidence with answer sets in the aggregate-free case.