 default negation on atoms which do not occur in $\Pi_{guess}$. The reason is that upon a “guess” $S$ for an answer set of $\Pi_{solve} =
\Pi_{guess} \cup \Pi_{check}'$, the reduct $\Pi_{solve}^S$ is ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{not}}\xspace}$-free. Contrary to the case of $\Pi_{check}$ in the two-step approach, it is not possibile to explicitly consider for a guess $S_{guess}$ of an answer set of $\Pi_{guess}$ varying extensions $S =
S_{guess}\cup S'_{check}$ to the whole program $\Pi_{solve}$ which activate different rules in $\Pi'_{check}$ (e.g., unstratified clauses $a {\mbox{\texttt{:\hspace{-0.15em}-}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\mathtt{not}}\xspace}\,b$ and $b{\mbox{\texttt{:\hspace{-0.15em}-}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\mathtt{not}}\xspace}\, a$ encoding a choice among $a$ and $b$). Therefore, default negation in rules of $\Pi_{check}$ must be handled with care and might cause major rewriting as well.

These observations provide some evidence that a rule-rewriting approach for obtaining $\Pi'_{check}$ from $\Pi_{check}$ may be complicated. For this reason, we adopt at a generic level a Meta-interpreter approach, in which the ${\textrm{co-}{\mathrm{NP}}}$-check modeled by $\Pi_{check}$ is “emulated” by a minimality check for a positive DLP $\Pi_{check}'$.

Basic approach
--------------

The considerations above lead us to an approach in which the program $\Pi_{check}'$ is constructed by the use of meta-interpretation techniques [@mare-remm-2003; @delg-etal-01; @eite-etal-2002a]. The idea behind meta-interpretation is here that a program $\Pi$ is represented by a set of facts, $F(\Pi)$, which is input to a fixed program $\Pi_{meta}$, the meta-interpreter, such that the answer sets of $\Pi_{meta} \cup F(\Pi)$ correspond to the answer sets of $\Pi$. Note that the meta-interpreters available are normal logic programs (including arbitrary negation),
default negation on atoms which do not occur in $ \Pi_{guess}$. The reason is that upon a “ guess ” $ S$ for an solution hardening of $ \Pi_{solve } = 
 \Pi_{guess } \cup \Pi_{check}'$, the reduct $ \Pi_{solve}^S$ is $ { \ensuremath{\mathtt{not}}\xspace}$-free. Contrary to the case of $ \Pi_{check}$ in the two - gradation approach path, it is not possibile to explicitly consider for a guess $ S_{guess}$ of an answer stage set of $ \Pi_{guess}$ varying extensions $ S = 
 S_{guess}\cup S'_{check}$ to the unharmed program $ \Pi_{solve}$ which activate unlike rules in $ \Pi'_{check}$ (e.g.,   unstratified clauses $ a { \mbox{\texttt{:\hspace{-0.15em}-}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\mathtt{not}}\xspace}\,b$ and $ b{\mbox{\texttt{:\hspace{-0.15em}-}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\mathtt{not}}\xspace}\, a$ encoding a option among $ a$ and $ b$). Therefore, default negation in rule of $ \Pi_{check}$ must be handled with care and might induce major rewriting as well. 

 These observations provide some evidence that a principle - rewriting approach for obtain $ \Pi'_{check}$ from $ \Pi_{check}$ may be complicated. For this reason, we assume at a generic level a Meta - interpreter approach, in which the $ { \textrm{co-}{\mathrm{NP}}}$-check modeled by $ \Pi_{check}$ is “ emulated ” by a minimality arrest for a positive DLP $ \Pi_{check}'$. 

 Basic approach 
 -------------- 

 The considerations above lead us to an approach in which the platform $ \Pi_{check}'$ is constructed by the use of meta - interpretation techniques [ @mare - remm-2003; @delg - etal-01; @eite - etal-2002a ]. The idea behind meta - interpretation is here that a program $ \Pi$ is represented by a set of facts, $ F(\Pi)$, which is input signal to a fixed program $ \Pi_{meta}$, the meta - spokesperson, such that the solution sets of $ \Pi_{meta } \cup F(\Pi)$ correspond to the answer sets of $ \Pi$. Note that the meta - spokesperson available are normal logic programs (including arbitrary negation),
 devault negation on atoms dhich do not oceyr in $\'i_{guess}$. The rearon is that upon a “guess” $S$ flr an abswer set of $\Pi_{solve} =
\Pk_{guess} \cui \Pi_{check}'$, the eeduct $\Pi_{solve}^S$ is ${\ensurslath{\kethtt{not}}\xspace}$-ftee. Contrary to the case ox $\Oi_{eheck}$ in the two-step approach, it is got posxihile to explicytly sonsjder for a guess $S_{guess}$ of an answsr set mf $\Pi_{guess}$ vatying extensions $S =
S_{guess}\ckp S'_{fheck}$ to the whole program $\Pi_{wolvq}$ which activxte differtnc rules in $\Ki'_{check}$ (e.g., unstratified clauses $a {\mbox{\cexttt{:\hspacg{-0.15zn}-}}\xsodce}{\ensuremavh{\mathnt{not}}\xspace}\,b$ and $b{\mbof{\texttt{:\nspace{-0.15em}-}}\xspace}{\cnsurxmaty{\mathtt{not}}\xspace}\, a$ enroding a choice amond $a$ and $b$). Tkerefore, default negariin in rulas ow $\Pi_{zhedk}$ mhst be haidled with dare and mitht cause major rewtiepmg as well.

Thsse obfewvations provide some evidence that a rlle-rswriting approach for ovtaining $\Pi'_{check}$ from $\Pi_{check}$ iay be complicated. For this reason, we adopt at a cenermc lercj q Leta-interpreter approach, in which the ${\textrm{cj-}{\jauhrk{NP}}}$-check modelcd by $\Pi_{check}$ is “ekupaygd” by a minimauity cksci for a positive DPP $\Pi_{chgck}'$.

Basuc approash
--------------

Thr considerations above lead us to an apiroaxh in which the prlgram $\Pi_{cheek}'$ is vonsttucted by the use of meca-intedpretation hechniquea [@mare-remm-2003; @delg-etxl-01; @vite-atal-2002a]. Tht idea behind meta-ynterpretetion is herd thst a pwogram $\Pi$ ls reisesented by a set lf faets, $F(\[i)$, which id input to a fixed program $\Pi_{meve}$, the meta-intgrpsetvr, such tkat thc answer sets os $\Pi_{meta} \cup F(\Ki)$ corres'ond tu the answvr sets oh $\Pi$. Note thwt the meta-indgrpreters avamlable arq noemal logic ofograms (includong arbitgaxy negatiin),
default negation on atoms which do not $\Pi_{guess}$. reason is upon a “guess” of = \Pi_{guess} \cup the reduct $\Pi_{solve}^S$ ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{not}}\xspace}$-free. Contrary to the case of in the two-step approach, it is not possibile to explicitly consider for a $S_{guess}$ of an answer set of $\Pi_{guess}$ varying extensions $S = S_{guess}\cup S'_{check}$ the program which different rules in $\Pi'_{check}$ (e.g., unstratified clauses $a {\mbox{\texttt{:\hspace{-0.15em}-}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\mathtt{not}}\xspace}\,b$ and $b{\mbox{\texttt{:\hspace{-0.15em}-}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\mathtt{not}}\xspace}\, a$ encoding a choice among and $b$). Therefore, default negation in rules of must be handled with and might cause major rewriting well. observations provide evidence a approach for obtaining from $\Pi_{check}$ may be complicated. For this reason, we adopt at a generic level a Meta-interpreter approach, which the by $\Pi_{check}$ “emulated” a check for a $\Pi_{check}'$. Basic approach -------------- The considerations to an approach in which the program $\Pi_{check}'$ constructed by use of meta-interpretation techniques [@mare-remm-2003; @delg-etal-01; The idea behind meta-interpretation is here that a $\Pi$ is represented by a set of facts, $F(\Pi)$, which is input to a fixed the meta-interpreter, such that answer sets of \cup correspond the sets of Note that the meta-interpreters available are normal logic programs (including arbitrary
 default negation on atoms whiCh do not occUr in $\PI_{guEss}$. thE reaSon iS that upon a “guesS” $s$ for An answer set of $\Pi_{solve} =
\Pi_{Guess} \CuP \pi_{chECk}'$, The reDuct $\Pi_{sOLvE}^s$ Is ${\eNsUrEmaTh{\MAtHtt{noT}}\xsPace}$-freE. Contrary tO thE cAse of $\Pi_{check}$ IN tHe two-step aPprOach, it is not pOssIbile tO eXplICitly ConSider For a guESs $S_{gueSs}$ of an ansWeR Set of $\PI_{Guess}$ vaRYInG extEnsions $S =
S_{guess}\cup s'_{ChECk}$ to the whole prOgram $\PI_{sOLvE}$ WHicH acTivate diffErEnt ruLEs in $\Pi'_{cHEcK}$ (E.G., UnsTRatified clausEs $a {\mbox{\textTT{:\hsPace{-0.15em}-}}\XsPacE}{\EnsureMath{\mAtHTt{nOt}}\xspace}\,b$ anD $b{\mbOx{\texttt{:\hSpace{-0.15eM}-}}\Xspace}{\eNSurematH{\mathtT{noT}}\xsPace}\, A$ EnCoDinG a CHoiCE aMonG $A$ anD $b$). TherefOrE, dEfaulT negATION in rUleS of $\PI_{checK}$ must be handleD wiTh caRE anD mighT causE majOr RewriTing as Well.

THeSe observations pRoviDe some eviDenCe ThaT a Rule-rEWritinG apProAch for oBtaininG $\pi'_{cHeCK}$ FRoM $\Pi_{check}$ may be complIcATEd. for this rEason, wE AdOpT At a generIc LevEl a META-inteRpreTEr Approach, In whicH ThE ${\tExtrm{co-}{\MaThrm{NP}}}$-ChEck ModEled bY $\pi_{chEck}$ is “eMulated” bY a minIMality check for A Positive DLP $\Pi_{CHeCK}'$.

baSIc apProAch
--------------

The consiDeraTIons AbovE LeAd uS To an aPproaCh IN wHIch the program $\Pi_{checK}'$ iS constRucteD by the use of meTa-interpreTATIon technIqueS [@MaRE-remm-2003; @delg-etal-01; @eIte-etAl-2002a]. The idea BEhind metA-inteRpretatiOn is here tHAT a prograM $\Pi$ Is rEprEseNTEd By a set of facts, $f(\pI)$, whiCh Is input To a Fixed prOgrAm $\PI_{meTa}$, tHe Meta-interPreter, suCh ThAt ThE anSwer sETs of $\Pi_{meTa} \Cup f(\PI)$ coRrespONd to thE answEr seTs Of $\pI$. NoTe that tHE mETA-intErPrEterS avAiLable Are nORmaL logic pRograms (inCluDIng aRbItRary negAtion),
 default negation on atoms  which donot o ccu r i n$\Pi _{gu ess}$. The rea s on i s that upon a “guess”$S$ f or an a n sw er se t of $\ P i_ { s olv e}  = 
\P i_ { gu ess}\cu p \Pi_{ check}'$,the  r educt $\Pi_{ s ol ve}^S$ is${\ ensuremath{\ mat htt{no t} }\x s pace} $-f ree.Contra r y to t he case o f$ \Pi_{c h eck}$ i n th e tw o-step approach,i ti s not possibil e to e xp l ic i t lycon sider foraguess $S_{gue s s} $ o f a n  answer set o f $\Pi_{gue s s}$  varyi ng  ex t ension s $S=S _{g uess}\cup S '_{c heck}$ to  the w h ole pro g ram $\P i_{sol ve} $ w hich ac ti vat ed iff e re ntr ule s in $\P i' _{ check }$ ( e . g . , un str atif ied c lauses $a {\m box {\te x ttt {:\hs pace{ -0.1 5e m}-}} \xspac e}{\e ns uremath{\mathtt {not }}\xspace }\, b$  an d$b{\m b ox{\te xtt t{: \hspace {-0.15e m }-} }\ x s p ac e}{\ensuremath{\ma th t t {n ot}}\xsp ace}\, a$  e n coding a  c hoi ce a m o ng $a $ an d  $ b$). The refore ,  d ef ault ne ga tion i nrul esof $\ P i_{c heck}$  must be  hand l ed with care a n d might cause ma j o rr ewri tin g as well.
The s e ob serv a ti ons provi de so me ev i dence that a rule-r ew riting  appr oach for obta ining $\Pi ' _ { check}$from $\ P i_{check}$ may  be c omplicated .  For thi s rea son, weadopt ata genericlev ela M eta - i nt erpreter appr o a ch,in  whichthe  ${\tex trm {co -}{ \ma th rm{NP}}}$ -check m od el ed  b y $ \Pi_{ c heck}$ i s“em ul ate d” by a mini malit y ch ec kf ora posit i ve D LP $ \P i_ {che ck} '$ .

Ba sica ppr oach
-- --------- --- 
The  c on siderat ions above le ad  us to anap pro ach in w hich the  program $\Pi_{check}'$ is cons tru ctedby t he use of  me ta-int erp r etatio n tech nique s[@m a r e-rem m - 20 03;  @ delg-etal- 0 1 ; @ eite- et al-2 002a].The idea behind me t a-i nterpretation  is  her e th ata  p r ogr am $\P i $  is represented  by a setof fa cts, $F(\P i )$,  w hich is  inputto af ixed pr ogram $\P i_{meta}$ ,them e ta- interprete r, suchthat thea nswer se ts of  $\ Pi_{me ta } \ cup F (\Pi)$ cor respo nd toth e answ er se ts  of $\Pi $. Note that the meta-i nterpr eters  av ailable a ren orm al logicprog rams (incl udi ngarbit rar y  nega tion ) ,
 default_negation on_atoms which do not_occur in_$\Pi_{guess}$._The reason_is_that upon a_“guess” $S$ for_an answer set of_$\Pi_{solve} =
\Pi_{guess} \cup_\Pi_{check}'$,_the reduct $\Pi_{solve}^S$ is ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{not}}\xspace}$-free. Contrary to the case of $\Pi_{check}$ in the two-step_approach,_it is_not_possibile_to explicitly consider for a_guess $S_{guess}$ of an answer_set of_$\Pi_{guess}$ varying extensions $S =
S_{guess}\cup S'_{check}$ to the_whole_program $\Pi_{solve}$ which_activate different rules in $\Pi'_{check}$ (e.g., unstratified clauses $a {\mbox{\texttt{:\hspace{-0.15em}-}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\mathtt{not}}\xspace}\,b$_and $b{\mbox{\texttt{:\hspace{-0.15em}-}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\mathtt{not}}\xspace}\, a$ encoding a choice_among $a$ and_$b$)._Therefore,_default negation in rules_of $\Pi_{check}$ must be handled with_care and might cause major rewriting_as well.

These observations provide some evidence that_a rule-rewriting approach for obtaining $\Pi'_{check}$_from $\Pi_{check}$ may be complicated._For this_reason, we adopt at a_generic level a_Meta-interpreter approach,_in which the_${\textrm{co-}{\mathrm{NP}}}$-check modeled by $\Pi_{check}$ is “emulated”_by a minimality_check for a positive DLP $\Pi_{check}'$.

Basic_approach
--------------

The_considerations above lead_us_to_an approach_in which the_program_$\Pi_{check}'$ is_constructed_by the use of meta-interpretation techniques_[@mare-remm-2003;_@delg-etal-01; @eite-etal-2002a]. The idea behind meta-interpretation is_here that a program_$\Pi$_is represented by a_set of facts, $F(\Pi)$, which_is input to a fixed program_$\Pi_{meta}$, the_meta-interpreter, such_that the answer sets of $\Pi_{meta} \cup F(\Pi)$ correspond to the_answer sets of $\Pi$. Note that_the meta-interpreters available are_normal logic_programs_(including arbitrary negation),