@article{DimopoulosGebserLuehneetal.2019,
  author    = {Dimopoulos, Yannis and Gebser, Martin and L{\"u}hne, Patrick and Romero Davila, Javier and Schaub, Torsten H.},
  title     = {plasp 3},
  series = {Theory and practice of logic programming},
  volume    = {19},
  journal   = {Theory and practice of logic programming},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {1471-0684},
  doi       = {10.1017/S1471068418000583},
  pages     = {477 -- 504},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {We describe the new version of the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL)-to-Answer Set Programming (ASP) translator plasp. First, it widens the range of accepted PDDL features. Second, it contains novel planning encodings, some inspired by Satisfiability Testing (SAT) planning and others exploiting ASP features such as well-foundedness. All of them are designed for handling multivalued fluents in order to capture both PDDL as well as SAS planning formats. Third, enabled by multishot ASP solving, it offers advanced planning algorithms also borrowed from SAT planning. As a result, plasp provides us with an ASP-based framework for studying a variety of planning techniques in a uniform setting. Finally, we demonstrate in an empirical analysis that these techniques have a significant impact on the performance of ASP planning.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{CabalarFandinoFarinasdelCerro2021,
  author    = {Cabalar, Pedro and Fandi{\~n}o, Jorge and Fari{\~n}as del Cerro, Luis},
  title     = {Splitting epistemic logic programs},
  series = {Theory and practice of logic programming / publ. for the Association for Logic Programming},
  volume    = {21},
  journal   = {Theory and practice of logic programming / publ. for the Association for Logic Programming},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press},
  address   = {Cambridge [u.a.]},
  issn      = {1471-0684},
  doi       = {10.1017/S1471068420000058},
  pages     = {296 -- 316},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Epistemic logic programs constitute an extension of the stable model semantics to deal with new constructs called subjective literals. Informally speaking, a subjective literal allows checking whether some objective literal is true in all or some stable models. As it can be imagined, the associated semantics has proved to be non-trivial, since the truth of subjective literals 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. 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 approaches fail to fulfill the epistemic splitting property, except the original semantics proposed by Gelfond 1991 and a recent proposal by the authors, called Founded Autoepistemic Equilibrium Logic.},
  language  = {en}
}