Jorge Fandinno, Vladimir Lifschitz
Theory of stable models is the mathematical basis of answer set programming. Several results in that theory refer to the concept of the positive dependency graph of a logic program. We describe a modification of that concept and show that the new understanding of positive dependency makes it possible to strengthen some of these results. Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).
Michael Gelfond, Jorge Fandinno, Evgenii Balai
This paper presents a rich knowledge representation language aimed at formalizing causal knowledge. This language is used for accurately and directly formalizing common benchmark examples from the literature of actual causality. A definition of cause is presented and used to analyze the actual causes of changes with respect to sequences of actions representing those examples.
Jorge Fandinno, Vladimir Lifschitz, Nathan Temple
Program completion is a translation from the language of logic programs into the language of first-order theories. Its original definition has been extended to programs that include integer arithmetic, accept input, and distinguish between output predicates and auxiliary predicates. For tight programs, that generalization of completion is known to match the stable model semantics, which is the basis of answer set programming. We show that the tightness condition in this theorem can be replaced by a less restrictive "local tightness" requirement. From this fact we conclude that the proof assistant anthem-p2p can be used to verify equivalence between locally tight programs. Under consideration for publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming
Jorge Fandinno, Luis Fariñas del Cerro
In this work, we show that both logic programming and abstract argumentation frameworks can be interpreted in terms of Nelson's constructive logic N4. We do so by formalizing, in this logic, two principles that we call non-contradictory inference and strengthened closed world assumption: the first states that no belief can be held based on contradictory evidence while the latter forces both unknown and contradictory evidence to be regarded as false. Using these principles, both logic programming and abstract argumentation frameworks are translated into constructive logic in a modular way and using the object language. Logic programming implication and abstract argumentation supports become, in the translation, a new implication connective following the non-contradictory inference principle. Attacks are then represented by combining this new implication with strong negation. Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).
Jorge Fandinno, Yuliya Lierler, Torsten Schaub
In this paper, we explore the concept of modularity in first-order answer set programming (ASP). We introduce a new formalism called parametric modular logic programs, which allows defining subprograms with parameters and intensionality statements. We demonstrate how this formalism can capture the semantics of clingo-programs with collective control, a feature that enables structuring and instantiating subprograms. We provide theoretical foundations for modular ASP, illustrate its usefulness, and connect to traditional non-modular ASP.
Jorge Fandinno, Pedro Cabalar, Philipp Wanko et al.
Constraint Answer Set Programming (CASP) is a hybrid paradigm that enriches Answer Set Programming (ASP) with numerical constraint processing, something required in many real-world applications. The usual specification of constraints in most CASP solvers is closer to the numerical back-end expressiveness and semantics, rather than to standard specification in ASP. In the latter, numerical attributes are represented with predicates and this allows declaring default values, leaving the attribute undefined, making non-deterministic assignments with choice rules or using aggregated values. In CASP, most (if not all) of these features are lost once we switch to a constraint-based representation of those same attributes. In this paper, we present the FLINGO language (and tool) that incorporates the aforementioned expressiveness inside the numerical constraints and we illustrate its use with several examples. Based on previous work that established its semantic foundations, we also present a translation from the newly introduced FLINGO syntax to regular CASP programs following the CLINGCON input format.
Jorge Fandinno, Yuliya Lierler
Splitting a logic program allows us to reduce the task of computing its stable models to similar tasks for its subprograms. This can be used to increase solving performance and prove program correctness. We generalize the conditions under which this technique is applicable, by considering not only dependencies between predicates but also their arguments and context. This allows splitting programs commonly used in practice to which previous results were not applicable.
Jorge Fandinno, Vladimir Lifschitz
In answer set programming, two groups of rules are considered strongly equivalent if they have the same meaning in any context. Strong equivalence of two programs can be sometimes established by deriving rules of each program from rules of the other in an appropriate deductive system. This paper shows how to extend this method of proving strong equivalence to programs containing the counting aggregate.
Pedro Cabalar, Jorge Fandinno, Torsten Schaub et al.
We investigate the concept of strong equivalence within the extended framework of Answer Set Programming with constraints. Two groups of rules are considered strongly equivalent if, informally speaking, they have the same meaning in any context. We demonstrate that, under certain assumptions, strong equivalence between rule sets in this extended setting can be precisely characterized by their equivalence in the logic of Here-and-There with constraints. Furthermore, we present a translation from the language of several clingo-based answer set solvers that handle constraints into the language of Here-and-There with constraints. This translation enables us to leverage the logic of Here-and-There to reason about strong equivalence within the context of these solvers. We also explore the computational complexity of determining strong equivalence in this context.
Jorge Fandinno, Zachary Hansen
This paper shows that the semantics of programs with aggregates implemented by the solvers clingo and dlv can be characterized as extended First-Order formulas with intensional functions in the logic of Here-and-There. Furthermore, this characterization can be used to study the strong equivalence of programs with aggregates under either semantics. We also present a transformation that reduces the task of checking strong equivalence to reasoning in classical First-Order logic, which serves as a foundation for automating this procedure.
Jorge Fandinno, Lute Lillo
This paper introduces a general framework for generate-and-test-based solvers for epistemic logic programs that can be instantiated with different generator and tester programs, and we prove sufficient conditions on those programs for the correctness of the solvers built using this framework. It also introduces a new generator program that incorporates the propagation of epistemic consequences and shows that this can exponentially reduce the number of candidates that need to be tested while only incurring a linear overhead. We implement a new solver based on these theoretical findings and experimentally show that it outperforms existing solvers by achieving a ~3.3x speed-up and solving 91% more instances on well-known benchmarks.
Jorge Fandinno, Seemran Mishra, Javier Romero et al.
We take up an idea from the folklore of Answer Set Programming, namely that choices, integrity constraints along with a restricted rule format is sufficient for Answer Set Programming. We elaborate upon the foundations of this idea in the context of the logic of Here-and-There and show how it can be derived from the logical principle of extension by definition. We then provide an austere form of logic programs that may serve as a normalform for logic programs similar to conjunctive normalform in classical logic. Finally, we take the key ideas and propose a modeling methodology for ASP beginners and illustrate how it can be used.
Jorge Fandinno, Wolfgang Faber, Michael Gelfond
The language of epistemic specifications and epistemic logic programs extends disjunctive logic programs under the stable model semantics with modal constructs called subjective literals. Using subjective literals, it is possible to check whether a regular literal is true in every or some stable models of the program, those models, in this context also called \emph{belief sets}, being collected in a set called world view. This allows for representing, within the language, whether some proposition should be understood accordingly to the open or the closed world assumption. Several attempts for capturing the intuitions underlying the language by means of a formal semantics were given, resulting in a multitude of proposals that makes it difficult to understand the current state of the art. In this paper, we provide an overview of the inception of the field and the knowledge representation and reasoning tasks it is suitable for. We also provide a detailed analysis of properties of proposed semantics, and an outlook of challenges to be tackled by future research in the area. Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP)
Jorge Fandinno, François Laferrière, Javier Romero et al.
We present a general approach to planning with incomplete information in Answer Set Programming (ASP). More precisely, we consider the problems of conformant and conditional planning with sensing actions and assumptions. We represent planning problems using a simple formalism where logic programs describe the transition function between states, the initial states and the goal states. For solving planning problems, we use Quantified Answer Set Programming (QASP), an extension of ASP with existential and universal quantifiers over atoms that is analogous to Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBFs). We define the language of quantified logic programs and use it to represent the solutions to different variants of conformant and conditional planning. On the practical side, we present a translation-based QASP solver that converts quantified logic programs into QBFs and then executes a QBF solver, and we evaluate experimentally the approach on conformant and conditional planning benchmarks. Under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.
Pedro Cabalar, Jorge Fandinno, Torsten Schaub et al.
Over the last decades the development of ASP has brought about an expressive modeling language powered by highly performant systems. At the same time, it gets more and more difficult to provide semantic underpinnings capturing the resulting constructs and inferences. This is even more severe when it comes to hybrid ASP languages and systems that are often needed to handle real-world applications. We address this challenge and introduce the concept of abstract and structured theories that allow us to formally elaborate upon their integration with ASP. We then use this concept to make precise the semantic characterization of CLINGO's theory-reasoning framework and establish its correspondence to the logic of Here-and-there with constraints. This provides us with a formal framework in which we can elaborate formal properties of existing hybridizations of CLINGO such as CLINGCON, CLINGOM[DL], and CLINGO[LP].
Pedro Cabalar, Jorge Fandinno, Brais Muñiz
We present xclingo, a tool for generating explanations from ASP programs annotated with text and labels. These annotations allow tracing the application of rules or the atoms derived by them. The input of xclingo is a markup language written as ASP comment lines, so the programs annotated in this way can still be accepted by a standard ASP solver. xclingo translates the annotations into additional predicates and rules and uses the ASP solver clingo to obtain the extension of those auxiliary predicates. This information is used afterwards to construct derivation trees containing textual explanations. The language allows selecting which atoms to explain and, in its turn, which atoms or rules to include in those explanations. We illustrate the basic features through a diagnosis problem from the literature.
Jorge Fandinno, Vladimir Lifschitz, Patrick Lühne et al.
This paper continues the line of research aimed at investigating the relationship between logic programs and first-order theories. We extend the definition of program completion to programs with input and output in a subset of the input language of the ASP grounder gringo, study the relationship between stable models and completion in this context, and describe preliminary experiments with the use of two software tools, anthem and vampire, for verifying the correctness of programs with input and output. Proofs of theorems are based on a lemma that relates the semantics of programs studied in this paper to stable models of first-order formulas. Under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.
Pedro Cabalar, Jorge Fandinno, Javier Garea et al.
We describe eclingo, a solver for epistemic logic programs under Gelfond 1991 semantics built upon the Answer Set Programming system clingo. The input language of eclingo uses the syntax extension capabilities of clingo to define subjective literals that, as usual in epistemic logic programs, allow for checking the truth of a regular literal in all or in some of the answer sets of a program. The eclingo solving process follows a guess and check strategy. It first generates potential truth values for subjective literals and, in a second step, it checks the obtained result with respect to the cautious and brave consequences of the program. This process is implemented using the multi-shot functionalities of clingo. We have also implemented some optimisations, aiming at reducing the search space and, therefore, increasing eclingo's efficiency in some scenarios. Finally, we compare the efficiency of eclingo with two state-of-the-art solvers for epistemic logic programs on a pair of benchmark scenarios and show that eclingo generally outperforms their obtained results. Under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.
Pedro Cabalar, Jorge Fandinno, Yuliya Lierler
In this paper, we study the problem of formal verification for Answer Set Programming (ASP), namely, obtaining a formal proof showing that the answer sets of a given (non-ground) logic program P correctly correspond to the solutions to the problem encoded by P, regardless of the problem instance. To this aim, we use a formal specification language based on ASP modules, so that each module can be proved to capture some informal aspect of the problem in an isolated way. This specification language relies on a novel definition of (possibly nested, first order) program modules that may incorporate local hidden atoms at different levels. Then, verifying the logic program P amounts to prove some kind of equivalence between P and its modular specification. Under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.
Markus Hecher, Jorge Fandinno
It is well-know that deciding consistency for normal answer set programs (ASP) is NP-complete, thus, as hard as the satisfaction problem for classical propositional logic (SAT). The best algorithms to solve these problems take exponential time in the worst case. The exponential time hypothesis (ETH) implies that this result is tight for SAT, that is, SAT cannot be solved in subexponential time. This immediately establishes that the result is also tight for the consistency problem for ASP. However, accounting for the treewidth of the problem, the consistency problem for ASP is slightly harder than SAT: while SAT can be solved by an algorithm that runs in exponential time in the treewidth k, it was recently shown that ASP requires exponential time in k \cdot log(k). This extra cost is due checking that there are no self-supported true atoms due to positive cycles in the program. In this paper, we refine the above result and show that the consistency problem for ASP can be solved in exponential time in k \cdot log(λ) where λ is the minimum between the treewidth and the size of the largest strongly-connected component in the positive dependency graph of the program. We provide a dynamic programming algorithm that solves the problem and a treewidth-aware reduction from ASP to SAT that adhere to the above limit.
Pedro Cabalar, Jorge Fandinno, Torsten Schaub et al.
Characterizing hybrid ASP solving in a generic way is difficult since one needs to abstract from specific theories. Inspired by lazy SMT solving, this is usually addressed by treating theory atoms as opaque. Unlike this, we propose a slightly more transparent approach that includes an abstract notion of a term. Rather than imposing a syntax on terms, we keep them abstract by stipulating only some basic properties. With this, we further develop a semantic framework for hybrid ASP solving and provide aggregate functions for theory variables that adhere to different semantic principles, show that they generalize existing aggregate semantics in ASP and how we can rely on off-the-shelf hybrid solvers for implementation.
Pedro Cabalar, Jorge Fandinno, Torsten Schaub et al.
We elaborate upon the formal foundations of hybrid Answer Set Programming (ASP) and extend its underlying logical framework with aggregate functions over constraint values and variables. This is achieved by introducing the construct of conditional expressions, which allow for considering two alternatives while evaluating constraints. Which alternative is considered is interpretation-dependent and chosen according to an associated condition. We put some emphasis on logic programs with linear constraints and show how common ASP aggregates can be regarded as particular cases of so-called conditional linear constraints. Finally, we introduce a polynomial-size, modular and faithful translation from our framework into regular (condition-free) Constraint ASP, outlining an implementation of conditional aggregates on top of existing hybrid ASP solvers.
Jorge Fandinno, Johannes Fichte
This is the Proceedings of the twelfth Workshop on Answer Set Programming and Other Computing Paradigms (ASPOCP) 2019, which was held in Philadelphia, USA, June 3rd , 2019.
Emmanuelle-Anna Dietz Saldanha, Jorge Fandinno
The Weak Completion Semantics (WCS) is a computational cognitive theory that has shown to be successful in modeling episodes of human reasoning. As the WCS is a recently developed logic programming approach, this paper investigates the correspondence of the WCS with respect to the well-established Answer Set Semantics (ASP). The underlying three-valued logic of both semantics is different and their models are evaluated with respect to different program transformations. We first illustrate these differences by the formal representation of some examples of a well-known psychological experiment, the suppression task. After that, we will provide a translation from logic programs understood under the WCS into logic programs understood under the ASP. In particular, we will show that logic programs under the WCS can be represented as logic programs under the ASP by means of a definition completion, where all defined atoms in a program must be false when their definitions are false.
Felicidad Aguado, Pedro Cabalar, Jorge Fandinno et al.
In this paper we present web-liver, a rule-based system for decision support in the medical domain, focusing on its application in a liver transplantation unit for implementing policies for donor-patient matching. The rule-based system is built on top of an interpreter for logic programs with partial functions, called lppf, that extends the paradigm of Answer Set Programming (ASP) adding two main features: (1) the inclusion of partial functions and (2) the computation of causal explanations for the obtained solutions. The final goal of web-liver is assisting the medical experts in the design of new donor-patient matching policies that take into account not only the patient severity but also the transplantation utility. As an example, we illustrate the tool behaviour with a set of rules that implement the utility index called SOFT.
Felicidad Aguado, Pedro Cabalar, Jorge Fandinno et al.
A common feature in Answer Set Programming is the use of a second negation, stronger than default negation and sometimes called explicit, strong or classical negation. This explicit negation is normally used in front of atoms, rather than allowing its use as a regular operator. In this paper we consider the arbitrary combination of explicit negation with nested expressions, as those defined by Lifschitz, Tang and Turner. We extend the concept of reduct for this new syntax and then prove that it can be captured by an extension of Equilibrium Logic with this second negation. We study some properties of this variant and compare to the already known combination of Equilibrium Logic with Nelson's strong negation. Under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.
Jorge Fandinno
In a recent line of research, two familiar concepts from logic programming semantics (unfounded sets and splitting) were extrapolated to the case of epistemic logic programs. The property of epistemic splitting provides a natural and modular way to understand programs without epistemic cycles but, surprisingly, was only fulfilled by Gelfond's original semantics (G91), among the many proposals in the literature. On the other hand, G91 may suffer from a kind of self-supported, unfounded derivations when epistemic cycles come into play. Recently, the absence of these derivations was also formalised as a property of epistemic semantics called foundedness. Moreover, a first semantics proved to satisfy foundedness was also proposed, the so-called Founded Autoepistemic Equilibrium Logic (FAEEL). In this paper, we prove that FAEEL also satisfies the epistemic splitting property something that, together with foundedness, was not fulfilled by any other approach up to date. To prove this result, we provide an alternative characterisation of FAEEL as a combination of G91 with a simpler logic we called Founded Epistemic Equilibrium Logic (FEEL), which is somehow an extrapolation of the stable model semantics to the modal logic S5. Under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.
Pedro Cabalar, Jorge Fandinno, Luis Fariñas del Cerro
Dynamic Epistemic Logic (DEL) is a family of multimodal logics that has proved to be very successful for epistemic reasoning in planning tasks. In this logic, the agent's knowledge is captured by modal epistemic operators whereas the system evolution is described in terms of (some subset of) dynamic logic modalities in which actions are usually represented as semantic objects called event models. In this paper, we study a variant of DEL, that wecall DEL[ASP], where actions are syntactically described by using an Answer Set Programming (ASP) representation instead of event models. This representation directly inherits high level expressive features like indirect effects, qualifications, state constraints, defaults, or recursive fluents that are common in ASP descriptions of action domains. Besides, we illustrate how this approach can be applied for obtaining conditional plans in single-agent, partially observable domains where knowledge acquisition may be represented as indirect effects of actions.
Pedro Cabalar, Jorge Fandinno, Luis Fariñas
Defined by Gelfond in 1991 (G91), epistemic specifications (or programs) are an extension of logic programming under stable models semantics that introducessubjective literals. A subjective literal al-lows checking whether some regular literal is true in all (or in some of) the stable models of the program, being those models collected in a setcalledworld view. One epistemic program may yield several world views but, under the original G91 semantics, some of them resulted from self-supported derivations. During the last eight years, several alternative approaches have been proposed to get rid of these self-supported worldviews. Unfortunately, their success could only be measured by studying their behaviour on a set of common examples in the literature, since no formal property of "self-supportedness" had been defined. To fill this gap, we extend in this paper the idea of unfounded set from standard logic programming to the epistemic case. We define when a world view is founded with respect to some program and propose the foundedness property for any semantics whose world views are always founded. Using counterexamples, we explain that the previous approaches violate foundedness, and proceed to propose a new semantics based on a combination of Moore's Autoepistemic Logic and Pearce's Equilibrium Logic. The main result proves that this new semantics precisely captures the set of founded G91 world views.
Pedro Cabalar, Jorge Fandinno, Luis Fariñas del Cerro
Epistemic logic programs constitute an extension of the stable models semantics to deal with new constructs called subjective literals. Informally speaking, a subjective literal allows checking whether some regular literal is true in all stable models or in some stable model. As it can be imagined, the associated semantics has proved to be non-trivial, as the truth of the subjective literal may interfere with the set of stable models it is supposed to query. As a consequence, no clear agreement has been reached and different semantic proposals have been made in the literature. Unfortunately, comparison among these proposals has been limited to a study of their effect on individual examples, rather than identifying general properties to be checked. In this paper, we propose an extension of the well-known splitting property for logic programs to the epistemic case. To this aim, we formally define when an arbitrary semantics satisfies the epistemic splitting property and examine some of the consequences that can be derived from that, including its relation to conformant planning and to epistemic constraints. Interestingly, we prove (through counterexamples) that most of the existing proposals fail to fulfill the epistemic splitting property, except the original semantics proposed by Gelfond in 1991.
Jorge Fandinno, Johannes Fichte
This is the Proceedings of the eleventh Workshop on Answer Set Programming and Other Computing Paradigms (ASPOCP) 2018, which was held in Oxford, UK, July 18th, 2018.
Jorge Fandinno, Claudia Schulz
Artificial Intelligence (AI) approaches to problem-solving and decision-making are becoming more and more complex, leading to a decrease in the understandability of solutions. The European Union's new General Data Protection Regulation tries to tackle this problem by stipulating a "right to explanation" for decisions made by AI systems. One of the AI paradigms that may be affected by this new regulation is Answer Set Programming (ASP). Thanks to the emergence of efficient solvers, ASP has recently been used for problem-solving in a variety of domains, including medicine, cryptography, and biology. To ensure the successful application of ASP as a problem-solving paradigm in the future, explanations of ASP solutions are crucial. In this survey, we give an overview of approaches that provide an answer to the question of why an answer set is a solution to a given problem, notably off-line justifications, causal graphs, argumentative explanations and why-not provenance, and highlight their similarities and differences. Moreover, we review methods explaining why a set of literals is not an answer set or why no solution exists at all.
Pedro Cabalar, Jorge Fandinno, Luis Fariñas del Cerro et al.
In this paper, we propose a variant of Answer Set Programming (ASP) with evaluable functions that extends their application to sets of objects, something that allows a fully logical treatment of aggregates. Formally, we start from the syntax of First Order Logic with equality and the semantics of Quantified Equilibrium Logic with evaluable functions (QELF). Then, we proceed to incorporate a new kind of logical term, intensional set (a construct commonly used to denote the set of objects characterised by a given formula), and to extend QELF semantics for this new type of expression. In our extended approach, intensional sets can be arbitrarily used as predicate or function arguments or even nested inside other intensional sets, just as regular first-order logical terms. As a result, aggregates can be naturally formed by the application of some evaluable function (count, sum, maximum, etc) to a set of objects expressed as an intensional set. This approach has several advantages. First, while other semantics for aggregates depend on some syntactic transformation (either via a reduct or a formula translation), the QELF interpretation treats them as regular evaluable functions, providing a compositional semantics and avoiding any kind of syntactic restriction. Second, aggregates can be explicitly defined now within the logical language by the simple addition of formulas that fix their meaning in terms of multiple applications of some (commutative and associative) binary operation. For instance, we can use recursive rules to define sum in terms of integer addition. Last, but not least, we prove that the semantics we obtain for aggregates coincides with the one defined by Gelfond and Zhang for the Alog language, when we restrict to that syntactic fragment. (Under consideration for acceptance in TPLP)
Pedro Cabalar, Jorge Fandinno
To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP). In this paper we propose an extension of logic programming (LP) where each default literal derived from the well-founded model is associated to a justification represented as an algebraic expression. This expression contains both causal explanations (in the form of proof graphs built with rule labels) and terms under the scope of negation that stand for conditions that enable or disable the application of causal rules. Using some examples, we discuss how these new conditions, we respectively call "enablers" and "inhibitors", are intimately related to default negation and have an essentially different nature from regular cause-effect relations. The most important result is a formal comparison to the recent algebraic approaches for justifications in LP: "Why-not Provenance" (WnP) and "Causal Graphs" (CG). We show that the current approach extends both WnP and CG justifications under the Well-Founded Semantics and, as a byproduct, we also establish a formal relation between these two approaches.
Pedro Cabalar, Jorge Fandinno, Michael Fink
In this work we propose a multi-valued extension of logic programs under the stable models semantics where each true atom in a model is associated with a set of justifications. These justifications are expressed in terms of causal graphs formed by rule labels and edges that represent their application ordering. For positive programs, we show that the causal justifications obtained for a given atom have a direct correspon- dence to (relevant) syntactic proofs of that atom using the program rules involved in the graphs. The most interesting contribution is that this causal information is obtained in a purely semantic way, by algebraic op- erations (product, sum and application) on a lattice of causal values whose ordering relation expresses when a justification is stronger than another. Finally, for programs with negation, we define the concept of causal stable model by introducing an analogous transformation to Gelfond and Lifschitz's program reduct. As a result, default negation behaves as "absence of proof" and no justification is derived from negative liter
Pedro Cabalar, Jorge Fandinno
In this work we propose a multi-valued extension of logic programs under the stable models semantics where each true atom in a model is associated with a set of justifications, in a similar spirit than a set of proof trees. The main contribution of this paper is that we capture justifications into an algebra of truth values with three internal operations: an addition '+' representing alternative justifications for a formula, a commutative product '*' representing joint interaction of causes and a non-commutative product '.' acting as a concatenation or proof constructor. Using this multi-valued semantics, we obtain a one-to-one correspondence between the syntactic proof tree of a standard (non-causal) logic program and the interpretation of each true atom in a model. Furthermore, thanks to this algebraic characterization we can detect semantic properties like redundancy and relevance of the obtained justifications. We also identify a lattice-based characterization of this algebra, defining a direct consequences operator, proving its continuity and that its least fix point can be computed after a finite number of iterations. Finally, we define the concept of causal stable model by introducing an analogous transformation to Gelfond and Lifschitz's program reduct.