Many hard examples for resolution
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Disjunctive stable models: unfounded sets, fixpoint semantics, and computation
Information and Computation
On the complexity of choosing the branching literal in DPLL
Artificial Intelligence
Proceedings of the 1999 international conference on Logic programming
Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver
Proceedings of the 38th annual Design Automation Conference
A sharp threshold in proof complexity
STOC '01 Proceedings of the thirty-third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
Nonmonotonic Logic: Context-Dependent Reasoning
Nonmonotonic Logic: Context-Dependent Reasoning
Extending and implementing the stable model semantics
Artificial Intelligence
Introduction to Algorithms
Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
JELIA '02 Proceedings of the European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming
ASSAT: computing answer sets of a logic program by SAT solvers
Artificial Intelligence - Special issue on nonmonotonic reasoning
Why are there so many loop formulas?
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL)
The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL)
A backjumping technique for disjunctive logic programming
AI Communications
Answer Set Programming Based on Propositional Satisfiability
Journal of Automated Reasoning
Pruning Operators for Disjunctive Logic Programming Systems
Fundamenta Informaticae
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on ECAI 2006: 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence August 29 -- September 1, 2006, Riva del Garda, Italy
Generalizing Boolean satisfiability III: implementation
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
Conflict-driven answer set solving
IJCAI'07 Proceedings of the 20th international joint conference on Artifical intelligence
Experimenting with heuristics for answer set programming
IJCAI'01 Proceedings of the 17th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 1
The first answer set programming system competition
LPNMR'07 Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning
Generic tableaux for answer set programming
ICLP'07 Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Logic programming
Extended ASP tableaux and rule redundancy in normal logic programs
ICLP'07 Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Logic programming
On the relation between answer set and sat procedures (or, between cmodels and smodels)
ICLP'05 Proceedings of the 21st international conference on Logic Programming
Lookahead in smodels compared to local consistencies in CSP
LPNMR'05 Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning
Pbmodels: software to compute stable models by pseudoboolean solvers
LPNMR'05 Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning
Evaluating search strategies and heuristics for efficient answer set programming
AI*IA'05 Proceedings of the 9th conference on Advances in Artificial Intelligence
The nomore++ approach to answer set solving
LPAR'05 Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning
Tableau calculi for answer set programming
ICLP'06 Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Logic Programming
A 25-year perspective on logic programming
Learning and using domain-specific heuristics in ASP solvers
AI Communications - Answer Set Programming
Conflict-driven answer set solving: From theory to practice
Artificial Intelligence
Tableau Calculi for Logic Programs under Answer Set Semantics
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL)
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
In this paper, we study the relation among Answer Set Programming (ASP) systems from a computational point of view. We consider smodels, dlv, and cmodels ASP systems based on stable model semantics, the first two being native ASP systems and the last being a SAT-based system. We first show that smodels, dlv, and cmodels explore search trees with the same branching nodes (assuming, of course, a same branching heuristic) on the class of tight logic programs. Leveraging on the fact that SAT-based systems rely on the deeply studied Davis---Logemann---Loveland (dll) algorithm, we derive new complexity results for the ASP procedures. We also show that on nontight programs the SAT-based systems are computationally different from native procedures, and the latter have computational advantages. Moreover, we show that native procedures can guarantee the "correctness" of a reported solution when reaching the leaves of the search trees (i.e., no stability check is needed), while this is not the case for SAT-based procedures on nontight programs. A similar advantage holds for dlv in comparison with smodels if the "well-founded" operator is disabled and only Fitting's operator is used for negative inferences. We finally study the "cost" of achieving such advantages and comment on to what extent the results presented extend to other systems.