A Common View on Strong, Uniform, and Other Notions of Equivalence in Answer-Set Programming
Stefan Woltran

TL;DR
This paper unifies various notions of program equivalence in answer-set programming by introducing a parameterized framework that captures strong, uniform, and intermediate equivalences through a general semantic characterization.
Contribution
It proposes a new parameterized equivalence framework that simultaneously considers restrictions on atoms in rule heads and bodies, unifying existing notions and providing a comprehensive semantic characterization.
Findings
Introduces a general semantic framework encompassing known equivalence notions.
Provides complexity bounds for equivalence checking.
Suggests a potential implementation approach for the framework.
Abstract
Logic programming under the answer-set semantics nowadays deals with numerous different notions of program equivalence. This is due to the fact that equivalence for substitution (known as strong equivalence) and ordinary equivalence are different concepts. The former holds, given programs P and Q, iff P can be faithfully replaced by Q within any context R, while the latter holds iff P and Q provide the same output, that is, they have the same answer sets. Notions in between strong and ordinary equivalence have been introduced as theoretical tools to compare incomplete programs and are defined by either restricting the syntactic structure of the considered context programs R or by bounding the set A of atoms allowed to occur in R (relativized equivalence).For the latter approach, different A yield properly different equivalence notions, in general. For the former approach, however, it…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge · Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation · Logic, programming, and type systems
