You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
The paper presents two equivalent definitions of answer sets for logic programs with aggregates. These definitions build on the notion of unfolding of aggregates, and they are aimed at creating methodologies to translate logic programs with aggregates to normal logic programs or positive programs, whose answer set semantics can be used to defined the semantics of the original programs. The first definition provides an alternative view of the semantics for logic programming with aggregates described by The second definition is similar to the traditional answer set definition for normal logic programs, in that, given a logic program with aggregates and an interpretation, the unfolding process produces a positive program. The paper shows how this definition can be extended to consider aggregates in the head of the rules. The proposed views of logic programming with aggregates are simple and coincide with the ultimate stable model semantics, and with other semantic characterizations for large classes of program (e.g., programs with monotone aggregates and programs that are aggregate-stratified). Moreover, it can be directly employed to support an implementation using available answer set solvers. The paper describes a system, called ASP^A, that is capable of computing answer sets of programs with arbitrary (e.g., recursively defined) aggregates.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: We propose and study extensions of logic programming with constraints represented as generalized atoms of the form C(X), where X is a finite set of atoms and C is an abstract constraint (formally, a collection of sets of atoms). Atoms C(X) are satisfied by an interpretation (set of atoms) M, if M ∩ X ∈ C. We focus here on monotone constraints, that is, those collections C that are closed under the superset. They include, in particular, weight (or pseudo-boolean) constraints studied both by the logic programming and SAT communities. We show that key concepts of the theory of normal logic programs such as the one-step provability operator, the semantics of supported and stable models, as well as several of their properties including complexity results, can be lifted to such case.
A very general semantic characterization of programs with aggregates has been proposed by Marek and Truszczy ' n ski in [1] . The framework offers a model where general aggregates can be employed both in the body and in the head of rules. The authors introduce the notion of abstract constraint atom, @math , where @math is a set of atoms (the domain of the aggregate) and @math is a subset of @math (the solutions of the aggregate). For an abstract constraint atom @math , we will denote @math with @math and @math with @math . In [1] , the focus is only on , i.e., constraints @math , where if @math then all supersets of @math are also in @math .