Equivalence of Logic Programs Under Updates

Inoue, Katsumi; Sakama, Chiaki

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30227-8_17

Cited by 35 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, (Brass & Dix 1997;Lifschitz, Tang, & Turner 1999) defined local rule transformations which retained the semantics of entire programs and thus provided first explicit results in this area. Papers following (Lifschitz, Pearce, & Valverde 2001) dealt with characterizations of strong equivalence (Lin 2002;Turner 2003;de Jongh & Hendriks 2003), studied other forms of equivalence (Inoue & Sakama 2004;Eiter, Tompits, & Woltran 2005;Oikarinen & Janhunen 2006;Oetsch, Tompits, & Woltran 2007;Woltran 2008) or were concerned with programs transformations (Eiter, Fink, & Woltran 2007;Eiter et al 2006;Lin & Chen 2007;Wong 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The problem of the equivalence of logic programs with respect to the stable-model semantics has received substantial attention in the answer-set programming research community in the past several years (Lifschitz, Pearce, & Valverde 2001;Lin 2002;Turner 2003;de Jongh & Hendriks 2003;Inoue & Sakama 2004;Eiter, Tompits, & Woltran 2005;Ferraris 2005;Eiter, Fink, & Woltran 2007;Oikarinen & Janhunen 2006;Lin & Chen 2007;Oetsch, Tompits, & Woltran 2007;Woltran 2008;Wong 2008;Gebser et al 2008). The problem can be stated as follows.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hyperequivalence of logic programs with respect to supported models

Truszczyński

Woltran

2008

Ann Math Artif Intell

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hyperequivalence of logic programs with respect to supported models

Truszczyński

Woltran

2008

Ann Math Artif Intell

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The latter approach has been introduced as relativised strong equivalence and has been investigated for ground programs Inoue & Sakama, 2004;Woltran, 2004). Similarly, a notion of relativised uniform equivalence was investigated in these papers.…”

Section: Generalisationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model-based recasting in answer-set programming

Eiter

Fink

Pührer

et al. 2013

Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. As well-known, answer-set programs do not satisfy the replacement property in general, i.e., programs P and Q that are equivalent may cease to be so when they are put in the context of some other program R, i.e., R ∪ P and R ∪ Q may have different (sets of) answer sets. Pearce et al. thus introduced strong equivalence for context-independent equivalence, and proved that such equivalence holds between given programs P and Q iff P and Q are equivalent theories in the monotonic logic of here-and-there. In this article, we consider a related question: given a program P , does there exist some program Q from a certain class C of programs such that P and Q are equivalent under a given notion of equivalence? Furthermore, if the answer to this question is positive, how can we recast P to an equivalent program from C (i.e., construct such a Q)? In particular, we consider classes of programs that emerge by (dis)allowing disjunction and/or negation, and as equivalence notions we consider strong, uniform, and ordinary equivalence. Based on general model-theoretic properties and a novel form of canonical programs, we develop semantic characterisations for the existence of such a program Q, determine the computational complexity of checking existence, and provide (local) rewriting rules for recasting.

show abstract

“…This version of hyperequivalence, known as uniform equivalence, appeared first in the database area in the setting of DATALOG and query equivalence [18]. Hyperequivalence wrt contexts restricted to a given alphabet, or relativized hyperequivalence, was proposed in [17,19]. It was generalized in [20] to allow contexts that use (possibly) different alphabets for the heads and bodies of rules.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relativized hyperequivalence of logic programs for modular programming

Truszczyński¹,

Woltran²

2009

Theory and Practice of Logic Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.A recent framework of relativized hyperequivalence of programs offers a unifying generalization of strong and uniform equivalence. It seems to be especially well suited for applications in program optimization and modular programming due to its flexibility that allows us to restrict, independently of each other, the head and body alphabets in context programs. We study relativized hyperequivalence for the three semantics of logic programs given by stable, supported and supported minimal models. For each semantics, we identify four types of contexts, depending on whether the head and body alphabets are given directly or as the complement of a given set. Hyperequivalence relative to contexts where the head and body alphabets are specified directly has been studied before. In this paper, we establish the complexity of deciding relativized hyperequivalence wrt the three other types of context programs.

show abstract

Equivalence of Logic Programs Under Updates

Cited by 35 publications

References 15 publications

Hyperequivalence of logic programs with respect to supported models

Hyperequivalence of logic programs with respect to supported models

Model-based recasting in answer-set programming

Relativized hyperequivalence of logic programs for modular programming

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About