Contributors

Baral, Randolph M.; Barone, Georgina; Bartges, Joe; Bélanger, Myriam; Brown, Scott A.; Brunt, Jane; Bryan, Jeffrey N.; Burton, Jenna H.; Calnon, Debbie; Caney, Sarah; Choy, Kevin; Clark, Melissa A.; Cohn, Leah A.; Dale, Steve; Ferguson, Duncan C.; Fowler, Brooke; Greco, Deborah S.; Griffin, Brenda; Hamper, Beth; Harasen, Greg; Herrera, Chamisa L.; Hoenig, Margarethe; Ilkiw, Jan E.; James, Katherine M.; Javinsky, Edward; Johnson, A. S.; Kennedy, Melissa; Kirk, Claudia A.; Kisseberth, William C.; Kurushima, Jennifer D.; Landsberg, Gary; Lappin, Michael R.; Lavergne, Sidonie N.; Lewis, Kristin M.; Ley, Jacqueline; Lim, Christine C.; Little, Susan E.; Lunn, Katharine F.; Lyons, Leslie A.; Maggs, David J.; McKune, Carolyn M.; Moriello, Karen A.; Morris, Daniel O.; Murphy, Maryanne; Im, Piljae; Peterson, Mark E.; Pypendop, Bruno H.; Quimby, Jessica M.; Raditic, Donna M.; Reiter, Alexander M.; Richardson, Jill A.; Rishniw, Mark; Robertson, Sheilah A.; Rodan, Ilona; Rollin, Bernard E.; Scherk, Margie; Seksel, Kersti; Singer, Lisa M.; Souza, Marcy J.; Sparkes, Andrew H; Stokes, Jennifer; Thayer, Vicki; Trepanier, Lauren A.; Veir, Julia K.; Viviano, Katrina R.; Witzel, Angela; Wypij, Jackie M.; Zoran, Debra L.

doi:10.1016/b978-1-4377-0660-4.00051-x

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This language extends FO with a construct for representing some of the most common types of inductive definitions: monotone induction and non-monotone induction such as induction over a well-founded order and iterated inductive definitions. Such definitions have many applications in real-life computational problems, e.g., in planning problems or problems involving reachability or dynamic systems (Denecker & Ternovska, 2008, 2007. At the same time, FO(ID) is also an integration of FO and logic programming.…”

Section: Inductive Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grounding FO and FO(ID) with Bounds

Wittocx¹,

Mariën²,

Denecker³

2010

jair

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grounding is the task of reducing a first-order theory and finite domain to an equivalent propositional theory. It is used as preprocessing phase in many logic-based reasoning systems. Such systems provide a rich first-order input language to a user and can rely on efficient propositional solvers to perform the actual reasoning.Besides a first-order theory and finite domain, the input for grounders contains in many applications also additional data. By exploiting this data, the size of the grounder's output can often be reduced significantly. A common practice to improve the efficiency of a grounder in this context is by manually adding semantically redundant information to the input theory, indicating where and when the grounder should exploit the data. In this paper we present a method to compute and add such redundant information automatically. Our method therefore simplifies the task of writing input theories that can be grounded efficiently by current systems.We first present our method for classical first-order logic (FO) theories. Then we extend it to FO(ID), the extension of FO with inductive definitions, which allows for more concise and comprehensive input theories. We discuss implementation issues and experimentally validate the practical applicability of our method.

show abstract

Section: Inductive Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%