\documentclass{beamer}

\setbeamertemplate{navigation symbols}{}
\setbeamertemplate{itemize items}[circle]

\usepackage[overridenote]{pdfpc}

\usepackage{tikz}

\usepackage{commath}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\hypersetup{%
  colorlinks=true,
  allcolors=blue,
}
%
% Local commands
%
\newcommand{\todo}[1]{{\color{orange}TODO #1}}

\newcommand{\naf}{\ensuremath{\sim\!}}
\newcommand{\larr}{\ensuremath{\leftarrow}}
\newcommand{\at}[1]{\ensuremath{\!\del{#1}}}

\newcommand{\co}[1]{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\newcommand{\fml}[1]{\ensuremath{{\cal #1}}}
\newcommand{\deft}[1]{\textbf{#1}}
\newcommand{\pset}[1]{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}\at{#1}}}
\newcommand{\ent}{\ensuremath{\lhd}}
\newcommand{\langof}[1]{\ensuremath{\fml{L}\at{#1}}}

\newcommand{\uset}[1]{\ensuremath{\left|{#1}\right>}}

\newcommand{\lset}[1]{\ensuremath{\left<{#1}\right|}}

\begin{document}

\begin{frame}
The goal of this text is to \textbf{explore how ASP programs with probabilistic facts} can lead to characterizations of the \textbf{joint distributions} of the program's atoms.
\end{frame}

\section{Introduction}


\begin{frame}{Notation}
    \note{
- We start with **common notations and assumptions** such as:\\
- Hi\\
- There\\
- And another note}
    \begin{itemize}
        \item The \textbf{complement} of $x$ is $\co{x} = 1 - x$.
        \item A \textbf{probabilistic atomic choice} $\alpha:a$ defines the disjunction $a \lor \neg a$ and assigns probabilities $P\at{a} = \alpha, P\at{\neg a} = \co{\alpha}$. 
        \item $\delta a$ denotes the disjunction $a \lor \neg a$ associated to the probabilistic choice $\alpha : a$ and $\delta\! \set{\alpha: a, a \in A} = \set{\delta a, a \in A}$ for any set of atoms $A$.
        \item Start with the \textbf{closed world assumption}, where $\naf x \models \neg x$.
        \item Also assume that \textbf{probabilistic choices} and \textbf{subgoals} are iid.
    \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}    

    \note{Next, we consider the following **general setting**}
    \begin{itemize}        
        \item  Let $\fml{A}$ be a set of \textbf{atoms}, $\fml{Z}$ the respective set of \textbf{observations},
        $\fml{Z} = \set{z = \alpha \cup \nu \middle| \alpha \subseteq \fml{A} \land \nu \subseteq \set{\neg a \middle| a \in \fml{A}} }$ and $\fml{I}$ the set of consistent observations or \textbf{interpretations}, $\fml{I} = \set{z \in \fml{Z} \middle| \forall a \in \fml{A}~\abs{ \set{a, \neg a} \cap z} \leq 1}$.
        
        \item A \textbf{PASP program} is $P = C \land F \land R$ and the sets of atoms, observations and interpretations of program $P$ are denoted $\fml{A}_P, \fml{Z}_P$ and $\fml{I}_P$.

        
        \item $C = C_P = \set{\alpha_i : a_i \middle| i = 1:n}$ is a set of probabilistic atomic choices and $\delta C_P$ the set of associated disjunctions, $F = F_P$ is a set of (common) facts and $R = R_P$ is a set of (common) rules.

        
        \item The \textbf{stable models} of $P = C \land F \land R$ are the stable models of $\delta P = \delta C + F + R$ and denoted $\fml{S} = \fml{S}_P$.
    \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}    
    \note{A model x has lower and upper "bounds".}
    \begin{itemize}
        \item \textbf{Proposition.} Let $x\in\fml{I}$ be an interpretation and $\lset{x} = \set{s\in \fml{S} \middle| s \subseteq x}$ and $\uset{x} = \set{s\in \fml{S} \middle| x \subseteq s}$. Exactly one of the following cases takes place 
        \begin{enumerate}
            %
            \item\label{prop:lucases.a} $\lset{x} = \set{x} = \uset{x}$. If $a \in \lset{x}$ and $b \in \uset{x}$ then $a \subseteq b$. Since stable models are minimal must be $a = b = x$ and $x$ is a stable model.

            %

            \item\label{prop:lucases.b} $\lset{x} \neq \emptyset \land \uset{x} = \emptyset$. 
            %
            \item\label{prop:lucases.c} $\lset{x} = \emptyset \land \uset{x} \neq \emptyset$.

            %

            \item\label{prop:lucases.d} $\lset{x} = \emptyset = \uset{x}$. 

        \end{enumerate}
    \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}

    \note{Total choice are key to define probability of a clause.}
    \begin{itemize}

        \item The probabilistic facts $C$ define a set $\Theta = \Theta_C$ of \textbf{total choices}, with $2^n$ elements, each one a set $\theta = \set{c_1, \ldots, c_n}$ where $c_i$ is either $a_i$ or $\neg a_i$.  
        
        \item For each stable model $s\in\fml{S}$ let $\theta_s$ be the unique \textbf{total choice} contained in $s$ and $\fml{S}_\theta \subseteq \fml{S}$ the set of stable models that contains $\theta$.

        \item Define 
        \begin{equation}

            p\at{\theta} = \prod_{a_i \in \theta}\alpha_i \prod_{\neg a_i \in \theta}\co{\alpha_i}.\label{eq:prob.tc}
        \end{equation}
    \end{itemize}

\end{frame}


\begin{frame}
    \note{Relate stable models with Sato's probabilistic semantics}

    \begin{quotation}

        The problem we address is how to \textbf{assign probabilities to observations} given that a total choice might entail zero or many stable models \emph{i.e.} How to assign probabilities to the stable models of $\fml{S}_\theta$ when $\envert{\fml{S}_\theta} \not= 1$?

    \end{quotation}

\end{frame}

\begin{frame}

    \note{There are some problems}

    As it turns out, it is quite easy to come out with a program from which result no single probability distribution. For example

    $$

    \begin{aligned}

        0.3:a,& \cr 
        b \lor c \larr& a.
    \end{aligned}

    $$

    has three stable models

    $$

    \begin{aligned}

        s_1 &= \set{\neg a} \cr

        s_2 &= \set{a, b} \cr

        s_3 &= \set{a, c}

    \end{aligned}
    $$

    and while $p\at{\set{\neg a}} = 0.7$ is quite natural, we have no further information to support the choice of a singular $\alpha\in\intcc{0,1}$ in the assignment 

    $$

    \begin{aligned}

        p\at{\set{a, b}} &= 0.3 \alpha \cr

        p\at{\set{a, c}} &= 0.3 \co{\alpha}
    \end{aligned}

    $$
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
    

    Next we try to formalize the possible configurations of this scenario. Consider the ASP program $P = C \land F \land R$ with total choices $\Theta $ and stable models $\fml{S}$. Let $d : \fml{S} \to \intcc{0,1}$ such that $\sum_{s\in\fml{S}_\theta} d\at{s} = 1$. 

\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
    
    \begin{enumerate}

        \item For each $z\in\fml{Z}$ only one of the following cases takes place 

        \begin{enumerate}
            \item $z$ is inconsistent. Then \textbf{define}
            \begin{equation}
                w_d\at{x} = 0.\label{def:w.inconsistent}
            \end{equation}
            %
            \item $z$ is an interpretation and $\lset{z} = \set{z} = \uset{x}$. Then $z = s$ is a stable model and \textbf{define}
            \begin{equation}
                w_d\at{z} = w\at{s} = d\at{s} p\at{\theta_s}.\label{eq:prob.sm}
            \end{equation}
            %
            \item $z$ is an interpretation and $\lset{z} \neq \emptyset \land \uset{x} = \emptyset$. Then \textbf{define} 

            \begin{equation}

                w_d\at{z} = \sum_{s \in \lset{z}} w_d\at{s}.\label{def:w.disj}
            \end{equation}
            %
            \item $z$ is an interpretation and $\lset{z} = \emptyset \land \uset{z} \neq \emptyset$. Then \textbf{define} 

            \begin{equation}

                w_d\at{z} = \prod_{s \in \uset{z}} w_d\at{s}.\label{def:w.conj}
            \end{equation}
            %

            \item $z$ is an interpretation and $\lset{z} = \emptyset \land \uset{z} = \emptyset$. Then \textbf{define} 

            \begin{equation}
                w_d\at{z} = 0.\label{def:w.empty}

            \end{equation}

        \end{enumerate}

        %

        \item The last point defines a ``weight'' function on the observations that depends not only on the total choices and stable models of a PASP but also on a certain function $d$ that must respect some conditions. To simplify the notation we use the subscript in $w_d$ only when necessary.

        %

        \item At first, it may seem counter-intuitive that $w\at{\emptyset} = \sum_{s\in\fml{S}} w\at{s}$ is the largest ``weight'' in the lattice. But $\emptyset$, as an interpretation, sets zero restrictions on the ``compatible'' stable models. The ``complement'' of $\bot = \emptyset$ is the \emph{maximal inconsistent} observation $\top = \fml{A} \cup \set{\neg a \middle| a \in \fml{A}}$.
        %
        \item \textbf{We haven't yet defined a probability measure.} To do so we must define a set of samples $\Omega$, a set of events $F\subseteq \pset{\Omega}$ and a function $P:F\to\intcc{0,1}$ such that:

        \begin{enumerate}

            \item $P\at{E} \in \intcc{0, 1}$ for any $E \in F$.

            \item $P\at{\Omega} = 1$.
            \item if $E_1 \cap E_2 = \emptyset$ then $P\at{E_1 \cup E_2} = P\at{E_1} + P\at{E_2}$. 

        \end{enumerate} 

        %
        \item In the following, assume that the stable models are iid.
        %
        \item Let the sample space $\Omega = \fml{Z}$ and the event space $F = \pset{\Omega}$. Define $Z = \sum_{\zeta\in\fml{Z}} w\at{\zeta}$ and
        \begin{equation}
            P\at{z} = \frac{w\at{z}}{Z}, z \in \Omega \label{eq:def.prob}
        \end{equation}
        and
        \begin{equation}
            P\at{E} = \sum_{x\in E} P\at{x}, E \subseteq \Omega. \label{eq:def.prob.event}
        \end{equation}
        Now:
        \begin{enumerate}
            \item $P(E) \in \intcc{0,1}$ results directly from the definitions of $P$ and $w$.
            \item $P\at{\Omega} = 1$ also results directly from the definitions.
            \item Consider two disjunct events $A, B \subset \Omega \land A \cap B = \emptyset$. Then 
            $$
            \begin{aligned}
                P\at{A \cup B} &= \sum_{x \in A \cup B} P\at{x} \cr
                    &= \sum_{x \in A} P\at{x} + \sum_{x \in B} P\at{x} - \sum_{x \in A \cap B} P\at{x}  \cr
                    &= \sum_{x \in A} P\at{x} + \sum_{x \in B} P\at{x} &\text{because}~A\cap B = \emptyset \cr
                    &= P\at{A} + P\at{B}.
            \end{aligned}
            $$
            \item So $\del{\Omega = \fml{Z}, F = \pset{\Omega}, P}$ is a probability space. {$\blacksquare$}
        \end{enumerate}
    \end{enumerate}
    
\end{frame}

\section{Cases \& Examples}

\subsection{Programs with disjunctive heads}

\begin{frame}

    
    Consider the program:

    $$
    \begin{aligned}
    c_1 &= a \lor \neg a, \cr
    c_2 &= b \lor c \larr a.
    \end{aligned}
    $$
    This program has two total choices,

    $$
    \begin{aligned}
    \theta_1&= \set{ \neg a }, \cr
    \theta_2&= \set{ a }.

    \end{aligned}

    $$
    and three stable models,

    $$
    \begin{aligned}

    s_1 &= \set{ \neg a }, \cr
    s_2 &= \set{ a, b }, \cr

    s_3 &= \set{ a, c }.

    \end{aligned}
    $$

\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
    Suppose that we add an annotation $\alpha:a$, which entails $\co{\alpha}:\neg a$. This is enough to get $w\at{s_1} = \co{\alpha}$ but, on the absence of further information, no fixed probability can be assigned to either model $s_2, s_3$ except that the respective sum must be $\alpha$. So, expressing our lack of knowledge using a parameter $d \in \intcc{0, 1}$ we get:

    $$

    \begin{cases}

        w\at{s_1 } = &\co{\alpha}\cr

        w\at{s_2 } = &d\alpha\cr
        w\at{s_3} = &\co{d}\alpha.
    \end{cases}

    $$
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
    
    Now consider all the interpretations for this program:
    \begin{center}
    \begin{tikzpicture}
        %\draw [help lines] grid (11,3);
        %
        \node [draw, circle] (E) at (5.5,0) {$\emptyset$};
        %
        \node [draw, circle] (a) at (2,2) {$a$};
        \node [draw, circle] (b) at (3,2) {$b$};
        \node [draw, circle] (c) at (4,2) {$c$};
        \node [fill=gray!50] (A) at (9,2) {$\co{a}$};

        \node (B) at (8,2) {$\co{b}$};
        \node (C) at (7,2) {$\co{c}$};
        %

        \node [fill=gray!50] (ab) at (0,4) {$ab$};

        \node [fill=gray!50] (ac) at (1,4) {$ac$};

        \node (aB) at (2,4) {$a\co{b}$};

        \node (aC) at (3,4) {$a\co{c}$};
        \node [draw] (Ab) at (4,4) {$\co{a}b$};

        \node [draw] (Ac) at (5,4) {$\co{a}c$};
        \node [draw] (AB) at (6,4) {$\co{a}\co{b}$};
        \node [draw] (AC) at (7,4) {$\co{a}\co{c}$};

        \node [fill=white] (bc) at (10,4) {$bc$};
        \node [fill=white] (bC) at (11,4) {$b\co{c}$};
        \node [fill=white] (Bc) at (12,4) {$\co{b}c$};
        \node [fill=white] (BC) at (13,4) {$\co{b}\co{c}$};
        %
        \node [draw] (abc) at (0.5,6) {$abc$};
        \node (abC) at (3,6) {$ab\co{c}$};
        \node (aBc) at (4,6) {$a\co{b}c$};
        \node (aBC) at (5,6) {$a\co{b}\co{c}$};

        \node [draw] (Abc) at (7,6) {$\co{a}bc$};
        \node [draw] (AbC) at (8,6) {$\co{a}b\co{c}$};
        \node [draw] (ABc) at (9,6) {$\co{a}\co{b}c$};

        \node [draw] (ABC) at (10,6) {$\co{a}\co{b}\co{c}$};

        %
        \draw [->] (ab) to [out=270,in=180] (E);
        \draw [->] (ab) to [out=270,in=90] (a);
        \draw [->] (ab) to [out=270,in=90] (b);
        \draw [->] (ab) to [out=90,in=270] (abc);

        %
        \draw [->] (ac) to [out=270,in=180] (E);
        \draw [->] (ac) to [out=270,in=90] (a);
        \draw [->] (ac) to [out=270,in=90] (c);
        \draw [->] (ac) to [out=90,in=270] (abc);

        %

        \draw [->] (A) to [out=270,in=0] (E);

        %

        \draw [->] (A) to [out=90,in=270] (Abc);
        \draw [->] (A) to [out=90,in=270] (AbC);
        \draw [->] (A) to [out=90,in=270] (ABc);

        \draw [->] (A) to [out=90,in=270] (ABC);

        %
        \draw [->] (A) to [out=90,in=270] (Ab);
        \draw [->] (A) to [out=90,in=270] (Ac);
        \draw [->] (A) to [out=90,in=270] (AB);
        \draw [->] (A) to [out=90,in=270] (AC);
    \end{tikzpicture}    

    \end{center}

\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
    
    In this diagram:
    \begin{itemize}
        \item Negations are represented as \emph{e.g.} $\co{a}$ instead of $\neg a$; Stable models are denoted by shaded nodes as \tikz{\node[fill=gray!50] {$ab$}}.
        
        \item Interpretations in $\lset{x}$ are \emph{e.g.} \tikz{\node[draw, circle] {$a$}} and those in $\uset{x}$ are \emph{e.g.}  \tikz{\node[draw] {$\co{a}b$}}. The remaining are simply denoted by \emph{e.g.}  \tikz{\node {$a\co{b}$}}.
        
        \item The edges connect stable models with related interpretations. Up arrow indicate links to $\uset{s}$ and down arrows to $\lset{s}$.
        

        \item The \emph{weight propagation} sets:

        $$
        \begin{aligned}
            w\at{abc} &= w\at{ab} w\at{ac} =  \alpha^2d\co{d}, \cr

            w\at{\co{a}\cdot\cdot} &= w\at{\neg a} = \co{\alpha}, \cr

            w\at{a} &= w\at{ab} + w\at{ac} = \alpha(d + \co{d}) = \alpha, \cr

            w\at{b} &= w\at{ab} = d\alpha, \cr

            w\at{c} &= w\at{ac} = \co{d}\alpha, \cr

            w\at{\emptyset} &= w\at{ab} + w\at{ac} + w\at{\neg a} = d\alpha + \co{d}\alpha + \co{\alpha} = 1, \cr

            w\at{a\co{b}} &= 0.
        \end{aligned}
        $$
        \item The total weight is
        $$
        \begin{aligned}

            Z   &= w\at{abc} + 8 w\at{\co{a}b}\cr

                &+ w\at{ab} + w\at{ac} + w\at{\co{a}}\cr

                &+ w\at{a}+ w\at{b}+ w\at{c}\cr

                &+ w\at{\emptyset}\cr
                %

                &= - \alpha^{2} d^{2} + \alpha^{2} d + 2 \alpha d - 7 \alpha + 10       

        \end{aligned}

        $$

        \item Now, if $\alpha$ has an annotation to \emph{e.g.} $0.3$ we get

        $$

        Z = - 0.09 d^{2} + 0.69 d + 7.9

        $$ 
        \item Now some statistics are possible. For example we get 
        $$
        P\at{abc \mid \alpha = 0.3} = \frac{0.09 d \left(d - 1\right)}{0.09 d^{2} - 0.69 d - 7.9}
        $$. 

        \item This expression can be plotted for $d\in\intcc{0,1}$

        \begin{center}

            \includegraphics[height=15em]{Pabc_alpha03.pdf}

        \end{center} 

        \item If a data set $E$ entails \emph{e.g.} $P\at{abc \mid E} = 0.0015$ we can numerically solve
        $$
        \begin{aligned}
            P\at{abc \mid \alpha = 0.3} &= P\at{abc \mid E} \cr

            \iff\cr

            \frac{0.09 d \del{d - 1}}{0.09 d^{2} - 0.69 d - 7.9} &= 0.0015
        \end{aligned}
        $$
        which has two solutions, $d \approx 0.15861$ or $d \approx 0.83138$.

    \end{itemize}

\end{frame}

\subsection{Non-stratified programs}

\begin{frame}
    The following LP is non-stratified, because has a cycle with negated arcs:
    $$
    \begin{aligned}

        c_1 &= a\lor \neg a,\cr

        c_2 &= b \larr \naf c \land \naf a, \cr

        c_3 &= c \larr \naf b.

    \end{aligned}

    $$    

    This program has three stable models

    $$

    \begin{aligned}

    s_1 &= \set{ a, c }, \cr
    s_2 &= \set{ \neg a, b }, \cr
    s_3 &= \set{ \neg a, c }.
    \end{aligned}
    $$
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}    
    The disjunctive clause $a\lor\neg a$ defines a set of \textbf{total choices}
    $$
    \Theta = \set{
        \theta_1 = \set{ a },
        \theta_2 = \set{ \neg a }
    }.

    $$
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
    
    Looking into probabilistic interpretations of the program and/or its models, we define $\alpha = P\at{\Theta = \theta_1}\in\intcc{0, 1}$ and $P\at{\Theta = \theta_2} = \co{\alpha}$.
    
    Since $s_1$ is the only stable model that results from $\Theta = \theta_1$, it is natural to extend $P\at{ s_1 } = P\at{\Theta = \theta_1}  = \alpha$. However, there is no clear way to assign $P\at{s_2}, P\at{s_3}$ since \emph{both models result from the single total choice} $\Theta = \theta_2$. Clearly, 
    $$P\at{s_2 \mid \Theta} + P\at{s_3 \mid \Theta} =
    \begin{cases}
        0 & \text{if}~\Theta = \theta_1\cr
        1 & \text{if}~\Theta = \theta_2
    \end{cases}
    $$
    but further assumptions are not supported \emph{a priori}. So let's \textbf{parameterize} the equation above,
    $$

    \begin{cases}

        P\at{s_2 \mid \Theta = \theta_2} = &\beta \in \intcc{0, 1} \cr
        P\at{s_3 \mid \Theta = \theta_2} = &\co{\beta},
    \end{cases}
    $$
    in order to explicit our knowledge, or lack of, with numeric values and relations.

\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
    Now we are able to define the \textbf{joint distribution} of the boolean random variables $A,B,C$, :
    
    $$
    \begin{array}{cc|l}
        A, B, C& P & \text{Obs.}\cr
        \hline
        a, \neg b, c & \alpha & s_1, \Theta=\theta_1\cr
        \neg a, b, \neg c & \co{\alpha}\beta  & s_2, \Theta=\theta_2\cr
        \neg a, \neg b, c & \co{\alpha}\co{\beta} & s_3, \Theta=\theta_2\cr
        \ast & 0&\text{not stable models}
    \end{array}
    $$
    where $\alpha, \beta\in\intcc{0,1}$.
\end{frame}

\section{Conclusions}


\begin{frame}
    \begin{itemize}
        \item We can use the basics of probability theory and logic programming to assign explicit \emph{parameterized} probabilities to the (stable) models of a program.
        \item In the covered cases it was possible to define a (parameterized) \emph{family of joint distributions}.

        \item How far this approach can cover all the cases on logic programs is (still) an issue \emph{under investigation}.

        \item However, it is non-restrictive since \emph{no unusual assumptions are made}.
    \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\section*{ASP \& related definitions}


\begin{frame}
    
    \begin{itemize}
        \item An \deft{atom} is $r(t_1, \ldots t_n)$ where
        \begin{itemize}
            \item $r$ is a $n$-ary predicate symbol and each $t_i$ is a constant or a variable.
            \item A \deft{ground atom} has no variables; A \deft{literal} is either an atom $a$ or a negated atom $\neg a$.
        \end{itemize}
        
        \item An \deft{ASP Program} is a set of \deft{rules} such as $h_1 \vee \cdots \vee h_m \leftarrow b_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge b_n$.
        \begin{itemize}
            \item The \deft{head} of this rule is $h_1 \vee \cdots \vee h_m$, the \deft{body} is $b_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge b_n$ and each $b_i$ is a \deft{subgoal}.
            \item Each $h_i$ is a literal, each subgoal $b_j$ is a literal or a literal preceded by $\naf\;$ and $m + n > 0$.
            \item A \deft{propositional program} has no variables.
            \item A \deft{non-disjunctive rule} has $m \leq 1$; A \deft{normal rule} has $m = 1$; A \deft{constraint} has $m = 0$; A \deft{fact} is a normal rule with $n = 0$.
        \end{itemize}
        
        \item The \deft{Herbrand base} of a program is the set of ground literals that result from combining all the predicates and constants of the program.     
        \begin{itemize}
            \item An \deft{interpretation} is a consistent subset (\emph{i.e.} doesn't contain $\set{a, \neg a}$) of the Herbrand base.
            \item Given an interpretation $I$, a ground literal $a$ is \deft{true}, $I \models a$, if $a \in I$; otherwise the literal is \deft{false}.
            \item A ground subgoal, $\naf b$, where $b$ is a ground literal, is \deft{true}, $I \models \naf b$, if $b \not\in I$; otherwise, if $b \in I$,  it is \deft{false}.
            \item A ground rule $r = h_1 \vee \cdots \vee h_m \leftarrow b_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge b_n$ is \deft{satisfied} by the interpretation $I$, \emph{i.e.} $I \models r$, iff 
            $$
            \forall j \exists i~I \models b_j \implies I \models h_i.
            $$
            \item A \deft{model} of a program is an interpretation that satisfies all its rules. Denote $\fml{M}_P$ the set of all models of $P$.
        \end{itemize}
        
        \item The \deft{dependency graph} of a program is a digraph where:
        \begin{itemize}
            \item Each grounded atom is a node.
            \item For each grounded rule there are edges from the atoms in the body to the atoms in the head.
            \item A \deft{negative edge} results from an atom with $\naf\;$; Otherwise it is a \deft{positive edge}.
            \item An \deft{acyclic program} has an acyclic dependency graph; A \deft{normal program} has only normal rules; A \deft{definite program} is a normal program that doesn't contains $\neg$ neither $\naf\;$.
            \item In the dependency graph of a \deft{stratified program} no cycle contains a negative edge.
            \item \textbf{A stratified program has a single minimal model} that assigns either true or false to each atom.
        \end{itemize}
        \item Every \emph{definite program} has a unique minimal model: its \deft{semantic}.
        \item Programs with negation may have no unique minimal model.
        \item Given a program $P$ and an interpretation $I$, their \deft{reduct}, $P^I$, is the propositional program that results from
        \begin{enumerate}

            \item Removing all the rules with $\naf b$ in the body where $b \in I$.

            \item Removing all the $\naf b$ subgoals from the remaining rules.
        \end{enumerate}
        \item A \deft{stable model} (or \deft{answer set}) of the program $P$ is an interpretation $I$ that is the minimal model of the reduct $P^I$.  
        \item Denote $\fml{S}_P$ the set of all stable models of program $P$. The \deft{semantics} (or \deft{answer sets}) of a program $P$ is the set $\fml{S}_P$.
        \begin{itemize}
            \item Some programs, such as $a \leftarrow \naf a$, have no stable models.
            \item A stable model is an interpretation closed under the rules of the program.
        \end{itemize}
    \end{itemize}
\end{frame}
\end{document}