Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-9dmbd Total loading time: 0.443 Render date: 2021-03-01T16:35:21.496Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Simulating Dynamic Systems Using Linear Time Calculus Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2014

Department of Computer Science, KU Leuven (e-mail:
Department of Computer Science, KU Leuven (e-mail:
Department of Computer Science, KU Leuven (e-mail:
Department of Computer Science, KU Leuven (e-mail:
Department of Computer Science, KU Leuven (e-mail:
Department of Computer Science, KU Leuven (e-mail:


Dynamic systems play a central role in fields such as planning, verification, and databases. Fragmented throughout these fields, we find a multitude of languages to formally specify dynamic systems and a multitude of systems to reason on such specifications. Often, such systems are bound to one specific language and one specific inference task. It is troublesome that performing several inference tasks on the same knowledge requires translations of your specification to other languages. In this paper we study whether it is possible to perform a broad set of well-studied inference tasks on one specification. More concretely, we extend IDP3 with several inferences from fields concerned with dynamic specifications.

Regular Papers
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.


Alviano, M., Calimeri, F., Charwat, G., Dao-Tran, M., Dodaro, C., Ianni, G., Krennwallner, T., Kronegger, M., Oetsch, J., Pfandler, A., Pührer, J., Redl, C., Ricca, F., Schneider, P., Schwengerer, M., Spendier, L. K., Wallner, J. P., and Xiao, G. 2013. The fourth answer set programming competition: Preliminary report. In LPNMR, Cabalar, P. and Son, T. C., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8148. Springer, 4253.Google Scholar
Amadini, R., Gabbrielli, M., and Mauro, J. 2013. Features for building CSP portfolio solvers. arXiv:1308.0227 [cs.AI].Google Scholar
Amanda, C., Andrew, C., Olaya, A. G., Jimenez, S., Lopez, C. L., Sanner, S., and Yoon, S. 2012. A survey of the seventh international planning competition. AI Magazine 33, 1 (June), 18.Google Scholar
Apt, K. R. 2003. Principles of Constraint Programming. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogaerts, B. 2014. PacManID: an implementation of Pac-Man using the simulation inference. Google Scholar
Bonner, A. J., Kifer, M., and Consens, M. 1993. Database programming in transaction logic. In In Proc. 4th Int. Workshop on Database Programming Languages. 309–337.Google Scholar
Calimeri, F., Ianni, G., Ricca, F., Alviano, M., Bria, A., Catalano, G., Cozza, S., Faber, W., Febbraro, O., Leone, N., Manna, M., Martello, A., Panetta, C., Perri, S., Reale, K., Santoro, M. C., Sirianni, M., Terracina, G., and Veltri, P. 2011. The third answer set programming system competition: Preliminary report of the system competition track. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR). Springer, 388403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Giunchiglia, E., Giunchiglia, F., Pistore, M., Roveri, M., Sebastiani, R., and Tacchella, A. 2002. NuSMV Version 2: An OpenSource Tool for Symbolic Model Checking. In Proc. International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV 2002). LNCS, vol. 2404. Springer, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
De Cat, B., Bogaerts, B., Bruynooghe, M., and Denecker, M. 2014. Predicate logic as a modelling language: The IDP system. CoRR abs/1401.6312. Google Scholar
De Cat, B., Denecker, M., and Stuckey, P. 2012. Lazy model expansion by incremental grounding. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Logic Programming – Technical Communications (ICLP'12), Dovier, A. and Costa, V. Santos, Eds. LIPIcs, vol. 17. Schloss Daghstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 201211.Google Scholar
De Pooter, S., Wittocx, J., and Denecker, M. 2011. A prototype of a knowledge-based programming environment. CoRR abs/1108.5667.Google Scholar
Denecker, M. 2012. The FO(ċ) knowledge base system project: An integration project (invited talk). In ASPOCP.Google Scholar
Denecker, M. and Ternovska, E. 2008. A logic of nonmonotone inductive definitions. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL) 9, 2 (Apr.), 14:1–14:52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denecker, M. and Vennekens, J. 2008. Building a knowledge base system for an integration of logic programming and classical logic. In ICLP, García de la Banda, M. and Pontelli, E., Eds. LNCS, vol. 5366. Springer, 7176.Google Scholar
Denecker, M. and Vennekens, J. 2014. The well-founded semantics is the principle of inductive definition, revisited. In KR. AAAI Press. Accepted.Google Scholar
Fitting, M. 1996. First-order logic and automated theorem proving (2nd ed.). Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebser, M., Grote, T., Kaminski, R., Obermeier, P., Sabuncu, O., and Schaub, T. 2012. Stream reasoning with answer set programming: Preliminary report. In KR, Brewka, G., Eiter, T., and McIlraith, S. A., Eds. AAAI Press, 613617.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1998. Action languages. Electron. Trans. Artif. Intell. 2, 193210.Google Scholar
Ghallab, M., Isi, C. K., Penberthy, S., Smith, D. E., Sun, Y., and Weld, D. 1998. PDDL – The Planning Domain Definition Language. Tech. rep., CVC TR-98-003/DCS TR-1165, Yale Center for Computational Vision and Control.Google Scholar
Green, T. J., Aref, M., and Karvounarakis, G. 2012. Logicblox, platform and language: A tutorial. In Datalog, Barceló, P. and Pichler, R., Eds. LNCS, vol. 7494. Springer, 18.Google Scholar
Haufe, S., Schiffel, S., and Thielscher, M. 2012. Automated verification of state sequence invariants in general game playing. Artif. Intell. 187, 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IDPDraw 2012. IDPDraw: finite structure visualization. Google Scholar
Ierusalimschy, R., de Figueiredo, L. H., and Celes, W. 1996. Lua – an extensible extension language. Software: Practice and Experience 26, 6, 635652.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, M., Moore, J. S., and Manolios, P. 2000. Computer-Aided Reasoning: An Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Kowalski, R. A. and Sadri, F. 2013. Towards a logic-based unifying framework for computing. CoRR abs/1301.6905.Google Scholar
Kowalski, R. A. and Sergot, M. J. 1986. A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Computing 4, 1, 6795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leuschel, M. and Butler, M. J. 2008. ProB: An automated analysis toolset for the B method. STTT 10, 2, 185203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, F. and Reiter, R. 1997. How to progress a database. Artif. Intell. 92, 1-2, 131167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mariën, M., Gilis, D., and Denecker, M. 2004. On the relation between ID-Logic and Answer Set Programming. In JELIA, Alferes, J. J. and Leite, J. A., Eds. LNCS, vol. 3229. Springer, 108120.Google Scholar
Markov, A. A. 1906. Rasprostranenie zakona bol'shih chisel na velichiny, zavisyaschie drug ot druga. Izvestiya Fiziko-matematicheskogo obschestva pri Kazanskom universitete 2-ya seriya, 15, 135156.Google Scholar
The Coq development team. 2004. The Coq proof assistant reference manual. LogiCal Project. Version 8.0.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. and Hayes, P. J. 1969. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In Machine Intelligence 4, Meltzer, B. and Michie, D., Eds. Edinburgh University Press, 463502.Google Scholar
Nemhauser, G. L. and Wolsey, L. A. 1988. Integer and Combinatorial Optimization. John Wiley and Sons, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiter, R. 2001. Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Riazanov, A. and Voronkov, A. 2002. The design and implementation of vampire. AI Communications 15, 2-3, 91110.Google Scholar
Shlyakhter, I., Seater, R., Jackson, D., Sridharan, M., and Taghdiri, M. 2003. Debugging overconstrained declarative models using unsatisfiable cores. In ASE. IEEE Computer Society, 94105.Google Scholar
Sutcliffe, G. 2009. The TPTP problem library and associated infrastructure: The FOF and CNF parts, v3.5.0. Journal of Automated Reasoning 43, 4, 337362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutcliffe, G. 2013. The 6th IJCAR Automated Theorem Proving System Competition - CASC-J6. AI Communications 26, 2, 211223.Google Scholar
Sutcliffe, G., Schulz, S., Claessen, K., and Baumgartner, P. 2012. The TPTP typed first-order form with arithmetic. In LPAR, Bjørner, N. and Voronkov, A., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7180. Springer, 406419.Google Scholar
Thielscher, M. 2011. A unifying action calculus. Artif. Intell. 175, 1 (Jan.), 120141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Ginkel, N. 2013. Pddl2IDP: a PDDL parser for IDP. Google Scholar
Vardi, M. Y. 1986. Querying logical databases. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 33, 2, 142160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weidenbach, C., Dimova, D., Fietzke, A., Kumar, R., Suda, M., and Wischnewski, P. 2009. Spass version 3.5. In CADE, Schmidt, R. A., Ed. LNCS, vol. 5663. Springer, 140145.Google Scholar
Wittocx, J., Mariën, M., and Denecker, M. 2008. The idp system: a model expansion system for an extension of classical logic. In LaSh, M. Denecker, Ed. 153–165.Google Scholar


Simulating Dynamic Systems Using Linear Time Calculus Theories

PDF 277 KB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 26 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 1st March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Simulating Dynamic Systems Using Linear Time Calculus Theories
Available formats

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Simulating Dynamic Systems Using Linear Time Calculus Theories
Available formats

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Simulating Dynamic Systems Using Linear Time Calculus Theories
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *