# Splitting Answer Set Programs with respect to Intensionality Statements (Extended Version)

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.19762 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.19762/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 5 of its 35 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Mar 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Multi-shot ASP solving with clingo](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.09811/) (2017)
- [ASP-Core-2 Input Language Format](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.04326/) (2019)
- [How to build your own ASP-based system?!](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.06692/) (2020)
- [Verifying Tight Logic Programs with anthem and Vampire](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.02025/) (2020)
- [Modular Answer Set Programming as a Formal Specification Language](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.02015/) (2020)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Parametric Modular Answer Set Programs Made Declarative](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.22716/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.