scholarly journals A program-level approach to revising logic programs under the answer set semantics

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (4-6) ◽  
pp. 565-580 ◽  
Author(s):  
JAMES P. DELGRANDE
Keyword(s):  
Logic Program ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Logic Programs ◽  
Minimal Set ◽  
Essential Idea ◽  
The One ◽  
Answer Set Semantics ◽  
Answer Sets ◽  
Update Logic ◽  
Answer Set

AbstractAn approach to the revision of logic programs under the answer set semantics is presented. For programs P and Q, the goal is to determine the answer sets that correspond to the revision of P by Q, denoted P * Q. A fundamental principle of classical (AGM) revision, and the one that guides the approach here, is the success postulate. In AGM revision, this stipulates that α ∈ K * α. By analogy with the success postulate, for programs P and Q, this means that the answer sets of Q will in some sense be contained in those of P * Q. The essential idea is that for P * Q, a three-valued answer set for Q, consisting of positive and negative literals, is first determined. The positive literals constitute a regular answer set, while the negated literals make up a minimal set of naf literals required to produce the answer set from Q. These literals are propagated to the program P, along with those rules of Q that are not decided by these literals. The approach differs from work in update logic programs in two main respects. First, we ensure that the revising logic program has higher priority, and so we satisfy the success postulate; second, for the preference implicit in a revision P * Q, the program Q as a whole takes precedence over P, unlike update logic programs, since answer sets of Q are propagated to P. We show that a core group of the AGM postulates are satisfied, as are the postulates that have been proposed for update logic programs.

scholarly journals Answer Sets for Logic Programs with Arbitrary Abstract Constraint Atoms

2007 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 353-389 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. C. Son ◽  
E. Pontelli ◽  
P. H. Tu
Keyword(s):  
Logic Program ◽  
Logic Programs ◽  
Normal Logic ◽  
Alternative Approaches ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Answer Set Semantics ◽  
Answer Sets ◽  
Semantics Of Logic Programs ◽  
Normal Logic Program ◽  
Answer Set

In this paper, we present two alternative approaches to defining answer sets for logic programs with arbitrary types of abstract constraint atoms (c-atoms). These approaches generalize the fixpoint-based and the level mapping based answer set semantics of normal logic programs to the case of logic programs with arbitrary types of c-atoms. The results are four different answer set definitions which are equivalent when applied to normal logic programs. The standard fixpoint-based semantics of logic programs is generalized in two directions, called answer set by reduct and answer set by complement. These definitions, which differ from each other in the treatment of negation-as-failure (naf) atoms, make use of an immediate consequence operator to perform answer set checking, whose definition relies on the notion of conditional satisfaction of c-atoms w.r.t. a pair of interpretations. The other two definitions, called strongly and weakly well-supported models, are generalizations of the notion of well-supported models of normal logic programs to the case of programs with c-atoms. As for the case of fixpoint-based semantics, the difference between these two definitions is rooted in the treatment of naf atoms. We prove that answer sets by reduct (resp. by complement) are equivalent to weakly (resp. strongly) well-supported models of a program, thus generalizing the theorem on the correspondence between stable models and well-supported models of a normal logic program to the class of programs with c-atoms. We show that the newly defined semantics coincide with previously introduced semantics for logic programs with monotone c-atoms, and they extend the original answer set semantics of normal logic programs. We also study some properties of answer sets of programs with c-atoms, and relate our definitions to several semantics for logic programs with aggregates presented in the literature.

scholarly journals Paracoherent Answer Set Semantics meets Argumentation Frameworks

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 688-704
Author(s):  
GIOVANNI AMENDOLA ◽  
FRANCESCO RICCA
Keyword(s):  
Logic Programming ◽  
Logic Program ◽  
Great Success ◽  
Argumentation Framework ◽  
Computational Costs ◽  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Answer Set Semantics ◽  
Answer Sets ◽  
Answer Set

AbstractIn the last years, abstract argumentation has met with great success in AI, since it has served to capture several non-monotonic logics for AI. Relations between argumentation framework (AF) semantics and logic programming ones are investigating more and more. In particular, great attention has been given to the well-known stable extensions of an AF, that are closely related to the answer sets of a logic program. However, if a framework admits a small incoherent part, no stable extension can be provided. To overcome this shortcoming, two semantics generalizing stable extensions have been studied, namely semi-stable and stage. In this paper, we show that another perspective is possible on incoherent AFs, called paracoherent extensions, as they have a counterpart in paracoherent answer set semantics. We compare this perspective with semi-stable and stage semantics, by showing that computational costs remain unchanged, and moreover an interesting symmetric behaviour is maintained.

scholarly journals Optimizing Answer Set Computation via Heuristic-Based Decomposition

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (04) ◽  
pp. 603-628 ◽  
Author(s):  
FRANCESCO CALIMERI ◽  
SIMONA PERRI ◽  
JESSICA ZANGARI
Keyword(s):  
Logic Programming ◽  
Logic Program ◽  
Answer Set Programming ◽  
Decomposition Techniques ◽  
Logic Programs ◽  
Experimental Activity ◽  
Performance Of Systems ◽  
Answer Sets ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Answer Set

AbstractAnswer Set Programming (ASP) is a purely declarative formalism developed in the field of logic programming and non-monotonic reasoning: computational problems are encoded by logic programs whose answer sets, corresponding to solutions, are computed by an ASP system. Different, semantically equivalent, programs can be defined for the same problem; however, performance of systems evaluating them might significantly vary. We propose an approach for automatically transforming an input logic program into an equivalent one that can be evaluated more efficiently. One can make use of existing tree-decomposition techniques for rewriting selected rules into a set of multiple ones; the idea is to guide and adaptively apply them on the basis of proper new heuristics, to obtain a smart rewriting algorithm to be integrated into an ASP system. The method is rather general: it can be adapted to any system and implement different preference policies. Furthermore, we define a set of new heuristics tailored at optimizing grounding, one of the main phases of the ASP computation; we use them in order to implement the approach into the ASP systemDLV, in particular into its grounding subsystemℐ-DLV, and carry out an extensive experimental activity for assessing the impact of the proposal.

scholarly journals A common view on strong, uniform, and other notions of equivalence in answer-set programming

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEFAN WOLTRAN
Keyword(s):  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Answer Set Programming ◽  
Common View ◽  
Complexity Bounds ◽  
Special Cases ◽  
Implementation Method ◽  
The One ◽  
Answer Set Semantics ◽  
Answer Sets ◽  
Answer Set

AbstractLogic programming under the answer-set semantics nowadays deals with numerous different notions of program equivalence. This is due to the fact that equivalence for substitution (known as strong equivalence) and ordinary equivalence are different concepts. The former holds, given programs P and Q, iff P can be faithfully replaced by Q within any context R, while the latter holds iff P and Q provide the same output, that is, they have the same answer sets. Notions in between strong and ordinary equivalence have been introduced as theoretical tools to compare incomplete programs and are defined by either restricting the syntactic structure of the considered context programs R or by bounding the set $\A$ of atoms allowed to occur in R (relativized equivalence). For the latter approach, different $\A$ yield properly different equivalence notions, in general. For the former approach, however, it turned out that any “reasonable” syntactic restriction to R coincides with either ordinary, strong, or uniform equivalence (for uniform equivalence, the context ranges over arbitrary sets of facts, rather than program rules). In this paper, we propose a parameterization for equivalence notions which takes care of both such kinds of restrictions simultaneously by bounding, on the one hand, the atoms which are allowed to occur in the rule heads of the context and, on the other hand, the atoms which are allowed to occur in the rule bodies of the context. We introduce a general semantical characterization which includes known ones as SE-models (for strong equivalence) or UE-models (for uniform equivalence) as special cases. Moreover, we provide complexity bounds for the problem in question and sketch a possible implementation method making use of dedicated systems for checking ordinary equivalence.

scholarly journals Inconsistency Proofs for ASP: The ASP - DRUPE Format

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 891-907
Author(s):  
MARIO ALVIANO ◽  
CARMINE DODARO ◽  
JOHANNES K. FICHTE ◽  
MARKUS HECHER ◽  
TOBIAS PHILIPP ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Logic Program ◽  
Answer Set Programming ◽  
Boolean Satisfiability ◽  
Logic Programs ◽  
Disjunctive Logic Programs ◽  
Normal Logic ◽  
Consistency Problem ◽  
Unit Propagation ◽  
Answer Sets ◽  
Answer Set

AbstractAnswer Set Programming (ASP) solvers are highly-tuned and complex procedures that implicitly solve the consistency problem, i.e., deciding whether a logic program admits an answer set. Verifying whether a claimed answer set is formally a correct answer set of the program can be decided in polynomial time for (normal) programs. However, it is far from immediate to verify whether a program that is claimed to be inconsistent, indeed does not admit any answer sets. In this paper, we address this problem and develop the new proof format ASP-DRUPE for propositional, disjunctive logic programs, including weight and choice rules. ASP-DRUPE is based on the Reverse Unit Propagation (RUP) format designed for Boolean satisfiability. We establish correctness of ASP-DRUPE and discuss how to integrate it into modern ASP solvers. Later, we provide an implementation of ASP-DRUPE into the wasp solver for normal logic programs.

scholarly journals Applications of intuitionistic logic in Answer Set Programming

2004 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 325-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
MAURICIO OSORIO ◽  
JUAN A. NAVARRO ◽  
JOSÉ ARRAZOLA
Keyword(s):  
Recent Result ◽  
Intuitionistic Logic ◽  
Answer Set Programming ◽  
Minimal Models ◽  
Logic Programs ◽  
Intermediate Logics ◽  
Answer Set Semantics ◽  
Answer Sets ◽  
Answer Set

We present some applications of intermediate logics in the field of Answer Set Programming (ASP). A brief, but comprehensive introduction to the answer set semantics, intuitionistic and other intermediate logics is given. Some equivalence notions and their applications are discussed. Some results on intermediate logics are shown, and applied later to prove properties of answer sets. A characterization of answer sets for logic programs with nested expressions is provided in terms of intuitionistic provability, generalizing a recent result given by Pearce. It is known that the answer set semantics for logic programs with nested expressions may select non-minimal models. Minimal models can be very important in some applications, therefore we studied them; in particular we obtain a characterization, in terms of intuitionistic logic, of answer sets which are also minimal models. We show that the logic G3 characterizes the notion of strong equivalence between programs under the semantic induced by these models. Finally we discuss possible applications and consequences of our results. They clearly state interesting links between ASP and intermediate logics, which might bring research in these two areas together.

Answer Sets and the Language of Answer Set Programming

AI Magazine ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 7-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir Lifschitz
Keyword(s):  
Answer Set Programming ◽  
Declarative Programming ◽  
Logic Programs ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Programming Paradigm ◽  
Introductory Article ◽  
Answer Set Semantics ◽  
Answer Sets ◽  
Semantics Of Logic Programs ◽  
Answer Set

Answer set programming is a declarative programming paradigm based on the answer set semantics of logic programs. This introductory article provides the mathematical background for the discussion of answer set programming in other contributions to this special issue.

scholarly journals A framework for compiling preferences in logic programs

2003 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
JAMES P. DELGRANDE ◽  
TORSTEN SCHAUB ◽  
HANS TOMPITS
Keyword(s):  
Logic Program ◽  
Logic Programs ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Dynamic Case ◽  
General Preference ◽  
Reasoning With Preferences ◽  
Answer Set Semantics ◽  
Ordered Logic ◽  
Answer Sets ◽  
General Dynamic

We introduce a methodology and framework for expressing general preference information in logic programming under the answer set semantics. An ordered logic program is an extended logic program in which rules are named by unique terms, and in which preferences among rules are given by a set of atoms of form s [pr ] t where s and t are names. An ordered logic program is transformed into a second, regular, extended logic program wherein the preferences are respected, in that the answer sets obtained in the transformed program correspond with the preferred answer sets of the original program. Our approach allows the specification of dynamic orderings, in which preferences can appear arbitrarily within a program. Static orderings (in which preferences are external to a logic program) are a trivial restriction of the general dynamic case. First, we develop a specific approach to reasoning with preferences, wherein the preference ordering specifies the order in which rules are to be applied. We then demonstrate the wide range of applicability of our framework by showing how other approaches, among them that of Brewka and Eiter, can be captured within our framework. Since the result of each of these transformations is an extended logic program, we can make use of existing implementations, such as dlv and smodels. To this end, we have developed a publicly available compiler as a front-end for these programming systems.

scholarly journals Automated Verification of Weak Equivalence within thesmodelsSystem

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 697-744 ◽  
Author(s):  
TOMI JANHUNEN ◽  
EMILIA OIKARINEN
Keyword(s):  
Search Engine ◽  
Logic Program ◽  
General Setting ◽  
Answer Set Programming ◽  
Weak Equivalence ◽  
Logic Programs ◽  
Meta Level ◽  
Level Problem ◽  
Answer Sets ◽  
Answer Set

AbstractIn answer set programming (ASP), a problem at hand is solved by (i) writing a logic program whose answer sets correspond to the solutions of the problem, and by (ii) computing the answer sets of the program using ananswer set solveras a search engine. Typically, a programmer creates a series of gradually improving logic programs for a particular problem when optimizing program length and execution time on a particular solver. This leads the programmer to a meta-level problem of ensuring that the programs are equivalent, i.e., they give rise to the same answer sets. To ease answer set programming at methodological level, we propose a translation-based method for verifying the equivalence of logic programs. The basic idea is to translate logic programsPandQunder consideration into a single logic program EQT(P,Q) whose answer sets (if such exist) yield counter-examples to the equivalence ofPandQ. The method is developed here in a slightly more general setting by taking thevisibilityof atoms properly into account when comparing answer sets. The translation-based approach presented in the paper has been implemented as a translator calledlpeqthat enables the verification of weak equivalence within thesmodelssystem using the same search engine as for the search of models. Our experiments withlpeqandsmodelssuggest that establishing the equivalence of logic programs in this way is in certain cases much faster than naive cross-checking of answer sets.

scholarly journals Loop formulas for description logic programs

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (4-6) ◽  
pp. 531-545 ◽  
Author(s):  
YISONG WANG ◽  
JIA-HUAI YOU ◽  
LI YAN YUAN ◽  
YI-DONG SHEN
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Web ◽  
Description Logic ◽  
Description Logics ◽  
Answer Set Programming ◽  
Desirable Property ◽  
Logic Programs ◽  
Alternative Semantics ◽  
Answer Set Semantics ◽  
Answer Sets ◽  
Answer Set

AbstractDescription Logic Programs (dl-programs) proposed by Eiter et al. constitute an elegant yet powerful formalism for the integration of answer set programming with description logics, for the Semantic Web. In this paper, we generalize the notions of completion and loop formulas of logic programs to description logic programs and show that the answer sets of a dl-program can be precisely captured by the models of its completion and loop formulas. Furthermore, we propose a new, alternative semantics for dl-programs, called the canonical answer set semantics, which is defined by the models of completion that satisfy what are called canonical loop formulas. A desirable property of canonical answer sets is that they are free of circular justifications. Some properties of canonical answer sets are also explored.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document