BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Yuliya Lierler

Yuliya Lierler contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial IntelligenceLogic in Computer Science

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
6works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2025arXiv

Anthem 2.0: Automated Reasoning for Answer Set Programming

Anthem 2.0 is a tool to aid in the verification of logic programs written in an expressive fragment of Clingo's input language named mini-gringo, which includes arithmetic operations and simple choice rules but not aggregates. It can translate logic programs into formula representations in the logic of here-and-there, and analyze properties of logic programs such as tightness. Most importantly, Anthem 2.0 can support program verification by invoking first-order theorem provers to confirm that a program adheres to a first-order specification, or to establish strong and external equivalence of programs. This paper serves as an overview of the system's capabilities. We demonstrate how to use Anthem 2.0 effectively and interpret its results.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Proceedings 38th International Conference on Logic Programming

ICLP is the premier international event for presenting research in logic programming. Contributions to ICLP 2022 were sought in all areas of logic programming, including but not limited to: Foundations: Semantics, Formalisms, Nonmonotonic reasoning, Knowledge representation. Languages issues: Concurrency, Objects, Coordination, Mobility, Higher order, Types, Modes, Assertions, Modules, Meta-programming, Logic-based domain-specific languages, Programming techniques. Programming support: Program analysis, Transformation, Validation, Verification, Debugging, Profiling, Testing, Execution visualization. Implementation: Compilation, Virtual machines, Memory management, Parallel and Distributed execution, Constraint handling rules, Tabling, Foreign interfaces, User interfaces. Related Paradigms and Synergies: Inductive and coinductive logic programming, Constraint logic programming, Answer set programming, Interaction with SAT, SMT and CSP solvers, Theorem proving, Argumentation, Probabilistic programming, Machine learning. Applications: Databases, Big data, Data integration and federation, Software engineering, Natural language processing, Web and semantic web, Agents, Artificial intelligence, Computational life sciences, Cyber-security, Robotics, Education.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Unifying Framework for Optimizations in non-boolean Formalisms

Search-optimization problems are plentiful in scientific and engineering domains. Artificial intelligence has long contributed to the development of search algorithms and declarative programming languages geared towards solving and modeling search-optimization problems. Automated reasoning and knowledge representation are the subfields of AI that are particularly vested in these developments. Many popular automated reasoning paradigms provide users with languages supporting optimization statements. Recall integer linear programming, MaxSAT, optimization satisfiability modulo theory, and (constraint) answer set programming. These paradigms vary significantly in their languages in ways they express quality conditions on computed solutions. Here we propose a unifying framework of so called extended weight systems that eliminates syntactic distinctions between paradigms. They allow us to see essential similarities and differences between optimization statements provided by distinct automated reasoning languages. We also study formal properties of the proposed systems that immediately translate into formal properties of paradigms that can be captured within our framework. Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Modular Answer Set Programming as a Formal Specification Language

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.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Disjunctive Answer Set Solvers via Templates

Answer set programming is a declarative programming paradigm oriented towards difficult combinatorial search problems. A fundamental task in answer set programming is to compute stable models, i.e., solutions of logic programs. Answer set solvers are the programs that perform this task. The problem of deciding whether a disjunctive program has a stable model is $Σ^P_2$-complete. The high complexity of reasoning within disjunctive logic programming is responsible for few solvers capable of dealing with such programs, namely DLV, GnT, Cmodels, CLASP and WASP. In this paper we show that transition systems introduced by Nieuwenhuis, Oliveras, and Tinelli to model and analyze satisfiability solvers can be adapted for disjunctive answer set solvers. Transition systems give a unifying perspective and bring clarity in the description and comparison of solvers. They can be effectively used for analyzing, comparing and proving correctness of search algorithms as well as inspiring new ideas in the design of disjunctive answer set solvers. In this light, we introduce a general template, which accounts for major techniques implemented in disjunctive solvers. We then illustrate how this general template captures solvers DLV, GnT and Cmodels. We also show how this framework provides a convenient tool for designing new solving algorithms by means of combinations of techniques employed in different solvers.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Abstract Answer Set Solvers with Learning

Nieuwenhuis, Oliveras, and Tinelli (2006) showed how to describe enhancements of the Davis-Putnam-Logemann-Loveland algorithm using transition systems, instead of pseudocode. We design a similar framework for several algorithms that generate answer sets for logic programs: Smodels, Smodels-cc, Asp-Sat with Learning (Cmodels), and a newly designed and implemented algorithm Sup. This approach to describing answer set solvers makes it easier to prove their correctness, to compare them, and to design new systems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access