Goto

Collaborating Authors

 stable mo


Achieving compositionality of the stable model semantics for Smodels programs

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

In this paper, a Gaifman-Shapiro-style module architecture is tailored to the case of Smodels programs under the stable model semantics. The composition of Smodels program modules is suitably limited by module conditions which ensure the compatibility of the module system with stable models. Hence the semantics of an entire Smodels program depends directly on stable models assigned to its modules. This result is formalized as a module theorem which truly strengthens Lifschitz and Turner's splitting-set theorem for the class of Smodels programs. To streamline generalizations in the future, the module theorem is first proved for normal programs and then extended to cover Smodels programs using a translation from the latter class of programs to the former class. Moreover, the respective notion of module-level equivalence, namely modular equivalence, is shown to be a proper congruence relation: it is preserved under substitutions of modules that are modularly equivalent. Principles for program decomposition are also addressed. The strongly connected components of the respective dependency graph can be exploited in order to extract a module structure when there is no explicit a priori knowledge about the modules of a program. The paper includes a practical demonstration of tools that have been developed for automated (de)composition of Smodels programs. To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.


Preferred extensions as stable models

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

Given an argumentation framework AF, we introduce a mapping function that constructs a disjunctive logic program P, such that the preferred extensions of AF correspond to the stable models of P, after intersecting each stable model with the relevant atoms. The given mapping function is of polynomial size w.r.t. AF. In particular, we identify that there is a direct relationship between the minimal models of a propositional formula and the preferred extensions of an argumentation framework by working on representing the defeated arguments. Then we show how to infer the preferred extensions of an argumentation framework by using UNSAT algorithms and disjunctive stable model solvers. The relevance of this result is that we define a direct relationship between one of the most satisfactory argumentation semantics and one of the most successful approach of non-monotonic reasoning i.e., logic programming with the stable model semantics.