The paper presents two equivalent definitions of answer sets for logic programs with aggregates. These definitions build on the notion of unfolding of aggregates, and they are aimed at creating methodologies to translate logic programs with aggregates to normal logic programs or positive programs, whose answer set semantics can be used to defined the semantics of the original programs. The first definition provides an alternative view of the semantics for logic programming with aggregates described by The second definition is similar to the traditional answer set definition for normal logic programs, in that, given a logic program with aggregates and an interpretation, the unfolding process produces a positive program. The paper shows how this definition can be extended to consider aggregates in the head of the rules. The proposed views of logic programming with aggregates are simple and coincide with the ultimate stable model semantics, and with other semantic characterizations for large classes of program (e.g., programs with monotone aggregates and programs that are aggregate-stratified). Moreover, it can be directly employed to support an implementation using available answer set solvers. The paper describes a system, called ASP^A, that is capable of computing answer sets of programs with arbitrary (e.g., recursively defined) aggregates.
@cite_34: We propose and study extensions of logic programming with constraints represented as generalized atoms of the form C(X), where X is a finite set of atoms and C is an abstract constraint (formally, a collection of sets of atoms). Atoms C(X) are satisfied by an interpretation (set of atoms) M, if M ∩ X ∈ C. We focus here on monotone constraints, that is, those collections C that are closed under the superset. They include, in particular, weight (or pseudo-boolean) constraints studied both by the logic programming and SAT communities. We show that key concepts of the theory of normal logic programs such as the one-step provability operator, the semantics of supported and stable models, as well as several of their properties including complexity results, can be lifted to such case.
[ @math ''] Let us assume @math is a stable model of @math according to @cite_34 . A result in @cite_34 shows that @math where [ ] We will show that @math is a answer set of @math by proving that @math where @math and @math the aggregate-free head reduct of @math with respect to @math (Definition ).