scholarly journals On properties of update sequences based on causal rejection

2002 ◽  
Vol 2 (6) ◽  
pp. 711-767 ◽  
Author(s):  
THOMAS EITER ◽  
MICHAEL FINK ◽  
GIULIANA SABBATINI ◽  
HANS TOMPITS

In this paper, we consider an approach to update nonmonotonic knowledge bases represented as extended logic programs under the answer set semantics. In this approach, new information is incorporated into the current knowledge base subject to a causal rejection principle, which enforces that, in case of conflicts between rules, more recent rules are preferred and older rules are overridden. Such a rejection principle is also exploited in other approaches to update logic programs, notably in the method of dynamic logic programming, due to Alferes et al.One of the central issues of this paper is a thorough analysis of various properties of the current approach, in order to get a better understanding of the inherent causal rejection principle. For this purpose, we review postulates and principles for update and revision operators which have been proposed in the area of theory change and nonmonotonic reasoning. Moreover, some new properties for approaches to updating logic programs are considered as well. Like related update approaches, the current semantics does not incorporate a notion of minimality of change, so we consider refinements of the semantics in this direction. We also investigate the relationship of our approach to others in more detail. In particular, we show that the current approach is semantically equivalent to inheritance programs, which have been independently defined by Buccafurri et al., and that it coincides with certain classes of dynamic logic programs. In view of this analysis, most of our results about properties of the causal rejection principle apply to each of these approaches as well. Finally, we also deal with computational issues. Besides a discussion on the computational complexity of our approach, we outline how the update semantics and its refinements can be directly implemented on top of existing logic programming systems. In the present case, we implemented the update approach using the logic programming system DLV.

AI Magazine ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerhard Brewka ◽  
Ilkka Niemela ◽  
Miroslaw Truszczynski

We give an overview of the multifaceted relationship between nonmonotonic logics and preferences. We discuss how the nonmonotonicity of reasoning itself is closely tied to preferences reasoners have on models of the world or, as we often say here, possible belief sets. Selecting extended logic programming with the answer-set semantics as a "generic" nonmonotonic logic, we show how that logic defines preferred belief sets and how preferred belief sets allow us to represent and interpret normative statements. Conflicts among program rules (more generally, defaults) give rise to alternative preferred belief sets. We discuss how such conflicts can be resolved based on implicit specificity or on explicit rankings of defaults. Finally, we comment on formalisms which explicitly represent preferences on properties of belief sets. Such formalisms either build preference information directly into rules and modify the semantics of the logic appropriately, or specify preferences on belief sets independently of the mechanism to define them.


Author(s):  
GRIGORIS ANTONIOU

A modularity concept for structuring and developing large logic programs and logical knowledge bases is presented. The concept is motivated from work in the field of algebraic specification, and enforces an extreme modularity discipline that goes beyond the one found in imperative or logic programming languages. As concrete programming languages (respectively knowledge representation formalisms), we consider Horn logic and equational logic programming. We give formal semantics for single modules and discuss correctness and verification issues. Large systems are constructed as interconnections of single modules. We introduce the so-called module operations of composition, actualization, and union, and give results concerning compositionality of semantics and correctness preservation.


1995 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jos� J�lio Alferes ◽  
Carlos Viegas Dam�sio ◽  
Lu�s Moniz Pereira

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
PEDRO CABALAR ◽  
JORGE FANDINNO

AbstractIn this paper, we propose an extension of logic programming where each default literal derived from the well-founded model is associated to a justification represented as an algebraic expression. This expression contains both causal explanations (in the form of proof graphs built with rule labels) and terms under the scope of negation that stand for conditions that enable or disable the application of causal rules. Using some examples, we discuss how these new conditions, we respectively callenablersandinhibitors, are intimately related to default negation and have an essentially different nature from regular cause-effect relations. The most important result is a formal comparison to the recent algebraic approaches for justifications in logic programming:Why-not ProvenanceandCausal Graphs. We show that the current approach extends both Why-not Provenance and Causal Graphs justifications under the well-founded semantics and, as a byproduct, we also establish a formal relation between these two approaches.


2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 843-887 ◽  
Author(s):  
ÉRIC A. MARTIN

AbstractLogic programming has developed as a rich field, built over a logical substratum whose main constituent is a nonclassical form of negation, sometimes coexisting with classical negation. The field has seen the advent of a number of alternative semantics, with Kripke–Kleene semantics, the well-founded semantics, the stable model semantics, and the answer-set semantics standing out as the most successful. We show that all aforementioned semantics are particular cases of a generic semantics, in a framework where classical negation is the unique form of negation and where the literals in the bodies of the rules can be ‘marked’ to indicate that they can be the targets of hypotheses. A particular semantics then amounts to choosing a particular marking scheme and choosing a particular set of hypotheses. When a literal belongs to the chosen set of hypotheses, all marked occurrences of that literal in the body of a rule are assumed to be true, whereas the occurrences of that literal that have not been marked in the body of the rule are to be derived in order to contribute to the firing of the rule. Hence the notion of hypothetical reasoning that is presented in this framework is not based on making global assumptions, but more subtly on making local, contextual assumptions, taking effect as indicated by the chosen marking scheme on the basis of the chosen set of hypotheses. Our approach offers a unified view on the various semantics proposed in logic programming, classical in that only classical negation is used, and links the semantics of logic programs to mechanisms that endow rule-based systems with the power to harness hypothetical reasoning.


2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 893-957 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARTÍN O. MOGUILLANSKY ◽  
NICOLÁS D. ROTSTEIN ◽  
MARCELO A. FALAPPA ◽  
ALEJANDRO J. GARCÍA ◽  
GUILLERMO R. SIMARI

AbstractThis article is devoted to the study of methods to change defeasible logic programs (de.l.p.s) which are the knowledge bases used by the Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) interpreter. DeLP is an argumentation formalism that allows to reason over potentially inconsistent de.l.p.s. Argument Theory Change (ATC) studies certain aspects of belief revision in order to make them suitable for abstract argumentation systems. In this article, abstract arguments are rendered concrete by using the particular rule-based defeasible logic adopted by DeLP. The objective of our proposal is to define prioritized argument revision operators à la ATC for de.l.p.s, in such a way that the newly inserted argument ends up undefeated after the revision, thus warranting its conclusion. In order to ensure this warrant, the de.l.p. has to be changed in concordance with a minimal change principle. To this end, we discuss different minimal change criteria that could be adopted. Finally, an algorithm is presented, implementing the argument revision operations.


2003 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
YAN ZHANG

Prioritized default reasoning has illustrated its rich expressiveness and flexibility in knowledge representation and reasoning. However, many important aspects of prioritized default reasoning have yet to be thoroughly explored. In this paper, we investigate two properties of prioritized logic programs in the context of answer set semantics. Specifically, we reveal a close relationship between mutual defeasibility and uniqueness of the answer set for a prioritized logic program. We then explore how the splitting technique for extended logic programs can be extended to prioritized logic programs. We prove splitting theorems that can be used to simplify the evaluation of a prioritized logic program under certain conditions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document