Document Open Access Logo

Temporal Modalities in Answer Set Programming (Invited Talk)

Author Pedro Cabalar

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.TIME.2020.2.pdf
  • Filesize: 372 kB
  • 5 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Pedro Cabalar
  • University of Corunna, Spain

Funding

  • Cabalar, Pedro: research partially supported by MINECO (grant TIN2017-84453-P) and Xunta de Galicia (grant GPC ED431B 2019/03), Spain.

Acknowledgements

This document is a summary of a long term project jointly developed by the Knowledge Representation group (inside IRLab) at the University of Corunna, Spain, led by Pedro Cabalar and the Potassco group at the University of Potsdam, Germany, directed by Torsten Schaub. This includes joint work with, among others, Felicidad Aguado, Martín Diéguez, Roland Kaminski, Fançois Laferriere, Philip Morkisch, Gilberto Pérez, Anna Schuhmann and Concepción Vidal. Authors from other universities that have undoubtely contributed to the project are David Pearce, Philip Balbiani, Luis Fariñas and Jorge Fandinno.

Cite AsGet BibTex

Pedro Cabalar. Temporal Modalities in Answer Set Programming (Invited Talk). In 27th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME 2020). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 178, pp. 2:1-2:5, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2020)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.TIME.2020.2

Abstract

Based on the answer set (or stable model) semantics for logic programs, Answer Set Programming (ASP) has become one of the most successful paradigms for practical Knowledge Representation and problem solving. Although ASP is naturally equipped for solving static combinatorial problems up to NP complexity (or ΣP2 in the disjunctive case) its application to temporal scenarios has been frequent since its very beginning, partly due to its early use for reasoning about actions and change. Temporal problems normally suppose an extra challenge for ASP for several reasons. On the one hand, they normally raise the complexity (in the case of classical planning, for instance, it becomes PSPACE-complete), although this is usually accounted for by making repeated calls to an ASP solver. On the other hand, temporal scenarios also pose a representational challenge, since the basic ASP language does not support temporal expressions. To fill this representational gap, a temporal extension of ASP called Temporal Equilibrium Logic (TEL) was proposed in and extensively studied later. This formalism constitutes a modal, linear-time extension of Equilibrium Logic which, in its turn, is a complete logical characterisation of (standard) ASP based on the intermediate logic of Here-and-There (HT). As a result, TEL is an expressive non-monotonic modal logic that shares the syntax of Linear-Time Temporal Logic (LTL) but interprets temporal formulas under a non-monotonic semantics that properly extends stable models.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Modal and temporal logics
  • Theory of computation → Constraint and logic programming
  • Computing methodologies → Nonmonotonic, default reasoning and belief revision
  • Computing methodologies → Logic programming and answer set programming
  • Computing methodologies → Temporal reasoning
Keywords
  • Logic Programming
  • Temporal Logic
  • Answer Set Programming
  • Modal Logic

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

References

  1. F. Aguado, P. Cabalar, M. Diéguez, G. Pérez, and C. Vidal. Temporal equilibrium logic: a survey. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 23(1-2):2-24, 2013. Google Scholar
  2. A. Bosser, P. Cabalar, M. Diéguez, and T. Schaub. Introducing temporal stable models for linear dynamic logic. In M. Thielscher, F. Toni, and F. Wolter, editors, Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'18), pages 12-21. AAAI Press, 2018. Google Scholar
  3. Laura Bozzelli and David Pearce. On the complexity of temporal equilibrium logic. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium of Logic in Computer Science (LICS'15), Kyoto, Japan, 2015. (to appear). Google Scholar
  4. G. Brewka, T. Eiter, and M. Truszczyński. Answer set programming at a glance. Communications of the ACM, 54(12):92-103, 2011. Google Scholar
  5. Tom Bylander. The computational complexity of propositional strips planning. Artificial Intelligence, 69(1):165-204, 1994. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(94)90081-7.
  6. P. Cabalar and M. Diéguez. STELP - a tool for temporal answer set programming. In LPNMR'11, volume 6645 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 370-375, 2011. Google Scholar
  7. P. Cabalar and G. Perez. Temporal Equilibrium Logic: A First Approach. In Proceedings of the 11superscriptth International Conference on Computer Aided Systems Theory (EUROCAST'07), page 241–248, 2007. Google Scholar
  8. Pedro Cabalar and Stéphane Demri. Automata-based computation of temporal equilibrium models. In 21st International Symposium on Logic-Based Program Synthesis and Transformation (LOPSTR'11), 2011. Google Scholar
  9. Pedro Cabalar and Martín Diéguez. Strong equivalence of non-monotonic temporal theories. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'14), Vienna, Austria, 2014. Google Scholar
  10. Pedro Cabalar, Roland Kaminski, Torsten Schaub, and Anna Schuhmann. Temporal answer set programming on finite traces. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 18(3-4):406-420, 2018. Google Scholar
  11. G. De Giacomo and M. Vardi. Linear temporal logic and linear dynamic logic on finite traces. In F. Rossi, editor, Proceedings of the Twenty-third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'13), pages 854-860. IJCAI/AAAI Press, 2013. Google Scholar
  12. M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. The Stable Model Semantics For Logic Programming. In Proc. of the 5superscriptth International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP'88), page 1070–1080, Seattle, Washington, 1988. Google Scholar
  13. Michael Gelfond and Vladimir Lifschitz. Representing action and change by logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 17(2/3&4):301-321, 1993. Google Scholar
  14. A. Heyting. Die formalen Regeln der intuitionistischen Logik. Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Physikalisch-mathematische Klasse, 1930. Google Scholar
  15. D. Pearce. A New Logical Characterisation of Stable Models and Answer Sets. In Proc. of Non-Monotonic Extensions of Logic Programming (NMELP'96), pages 57-70, Bad Honnef, Germany, 1996. Google Scholar
  16. A. Pnueli. The temporal logic of programs. In 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 46-57. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1977. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact