Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/association-for-computing-machinery/a-model-theoretic-approach-to-belief-change-in-answer-set-programming-hcAXw0o0hU
References (93)
-
Chiaki Sakama, Katsumi Inoue (2005)
Combining Answer Sets of Nonmonotonic Logic Programs -
P. Simons, I. Niemelä, T. Soininen (2000)
Extending and implementing the stable model semanticsArtif. Intell., 138
-
Teodor Przymusinski, H. Turner (1995)
Update by Means of Inference RulesJ. Log. Program., 30
-
V. Lifschitz, Thomas Woo (1992)
Answer Sets in General Nonmonotonic Reasoning (Preliminary Report) -
D. Nelson (1949)
Constructible falsityJournal of Symbolic Logic, 14
-
D. Gabbay, O. Rodrigues, A. Russo (2008)
BELIEF REVISION IN NON-CLASSICAL LOGICSThe Review of Symbolic Logic, 1
-
F. Buccafurri, N. Leone, P. Rullo (2000)
Enhancing Disjunctive Datalog by ConstraintsIEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 12
-
|= s R iff there exist -
Chitta Baral, Sarit Kraus, J. Minker (1991)
Combining Multiple Knowledge BasesIEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 3
-
Thomas Eiter, G. Gottlob (1992)
On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates, and counterfactualsProceedings of the eleventh ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems
-
U, Z), which is a contradiction to the assumption . Hence, x ∈ Z holds. If (ii) does not hold, we get x ∈ X U. Now -
H. Turner (2003)
Strong equivalence made easy: nested expressions and weight constraintsTheory and Practice of Logic Programming, 3
-
We show that the following relations hold: (i) x ∈ Z; and (ii) x ∈ U iff x ∈ X. Towards a contradiction, first suppose x / ∈ Z. Then, we have x -
W. Spohn (1988)
Ordinal Conditional Functions: A Dynamic Theory of Epistemic States -
S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, S. Kaci, H. Prade (2002)
Possibilistic Merging and Distance-Based Fusion of Propositional InformationAnnals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 34
-
V. Marek, M. Truszczynski (1998)
Revision ProgrammingTheor. Comput. Sci., 190
-
E. Dantsin, Thomas Eiter, G. Gottlob, A. Voronkov (1997)
Complexity and expressive power of logic programmingProceedings of Computational Complexity. Twelfth Annual IEEE Conference
-
P. Menzies, P. Gardenfors (1988)
Knowledge in flux: modeling the dynamics of epistemic states -
Katsumi Inoue, Chiaki Sakama (1998)
Negation as Failure in the HeadJ. Log. Program., 35
-
C. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors, D. Makinson (1985)
On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functionsJournal of Symbolic Logic, 50
-
Thus, an algorithm to decide P * Q |= s R is as follows We guess interpretations -
Hence, according to Definition 3 -
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic -
Yan Zhang, N. Foo (2005)
Solving Logic Program Conflict through Strong and Weak Forgettings -
S. Konieczny, R. Pérez (2002)
Merging Information Under Constraints: A Logical FrameworkJ. Log. Comput., 12
-
C. Witteveen, W. Hoek, H. Nivelle (1994)
Revision of Non-Monotonic Theories -
Thomas Eiter, H. Tompits, S. Woltran (2005)
On Solution Correspondences in Answer-Set Programming -
P. Liberatore, M. Schaerf (1998)
Arbitration (or How to Merge Knowledge Bases)IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 10
-
Most of the parts follow immediately from the fact that -
Katsumi Inoue, Chiaki Sakama (1995)
Abductive Framework for Nonmonotonic Theory Change -
N. Leone, G. Pfeifer, Wolfgang Faber, Thomas Eiter, G. Gottlob, S. Perri, Francesco Scarcello (2002)
The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoningACM Trans. Comput. Log., 7
-
Thomas Eiter, Wolfgang Faber, N. Leone, G. Pfeifer
Under Consideration for Publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming Computing Preferred Answer Sets by Meta-interpretation in Answer Set Programming£ -
If the answer is yes, we already have found an SE interpretation (X, Y) such that -
P. Revesz (1993)
On the semantics of theory change: arbitration between old and new informationProceedings of the twelfth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems
-
Thomas Eiter, Kewen Wang (2008)
Semantic forgetting in answer set programmingArtif. Intell., 172
-
J. Delgrande, Torsten Schaub, H. Tompits (2007)
A Preference-Based Framework for Updating Logic Programs -
J. Delgrande, Torsten Schaub, H. Tompits, S. Woltran (2009)
Merging Logic Programs under Answer Set Semantics -
Yan Zhang, N. Foo (1997)
Towards Generalized Rule-based Updates -
H. Katsuno, A. Mendelzon (1991)
On the Difference between Updating a Knowledge Base and Revising It -
Y. Kudo, T. Murai (2004)
A Method of Belief Base Revision for Extended Logic Programs Based on State Transition Diagrams -
Chitta Baral (2003)
Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving -
V. Lifschitz, D. Pearce, A. Valverde (2001)
Strongly equivalent logic programsACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL), 2
-
We show that Definition 3.1 results in a well-defined set of SE models. For SE(P) ∩ SE(Q) = ∅ we have that ∅ is trivially well-defined (and R can be given by ⊥ ←) -
Chiaki Sakama, Katsumi Inoue (2008)
Coordination in answer set programmingACM Trans. Comput. Log., 9
-
Mauricio Osorio, F. Flores (2004)
On Updates of Logic Programs: A Properties-Based Approach -
Jinxin Lin, A. Mendelzon (1999)
Knowledge Base Merging by Majority -
Chitta Baral, Sarit Kraus, J. Minker, V. Subrahmanian (1992)
COMBINING KNOWLEDGE BASES CONSISTING OF FIRST‐ORDER THEORIESComputational Intelligence, 8
-
Chiaki Sakama, Katsumi Inoue (2006)
Constructing Consensus Logic Programs -
(2002)
Under consideration for publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1 A Framework for Compiling Preferences in Logic Programs -
J. Delgrande, P. Peppas, S. Woltran (2008)
AGM-Style Belief Revision of Logic Programs under Answer Set Semantics -
Yi-Dong Shen, Jia-Huai You, Li-Yan Yuan (2009)
Characterizations of stable model semantics for logic programs with arbitrary constraint atomsTheory and Practice of Logic Programming, 9
-
The proofs of these results proceed similarly to the one for Theorem 5 -
Thus, from Definition 3.3, we have that there is some -
Before giving the proof, we first present a lemma that is key for postulates (RA5) and (RA6) -
A user's guide to gringo, clasp, clingo, and iclingo -
K. Satoh (1988)
Nonmonotonic Reasoning by Minimal Belief Revision -
M. Dalal (1988)
Investigations into a Theory of Knowledge Base Revision -
Chiaki Sakama, Katsumi Inoue (2004)
Under consideration for publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1 Constructive Circumscription -
Pedro Cabalar, P. Ferraris (2007)
Propositional theories are strongly equivalent to logic programsTheory and Practice of Logic Programming, 7
-
Otherwise, there are two cases to consider -
Mod(Q), Mod(P)) implies Y \ {x} ∈ σ (Mod(Q), Mod(P)) -
(2001)
Under consideration for publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1 On Properties of Update Sequences Based on Causal Rejection -
M. Gebser, Jörg Pührer, Torsten Schaub, H. Tompits (2008)
A Meta-Programming Technique for Debugging Answer-Set Programs -
João Leite (2003)
Evolving knowledge bases : specification and semantics -
But then x / ∈ Y (Z ∪ {x}) which yields Y (Z ∪ {x}) ⊂ Y Z, a contradiction to our assumption. Hence, we can suppose x ∈ Z. Now, since Y ∈ Mod(Q), obviously Y \ {x} ∈ Mod(Q) as well -
We first show membership in P 2 for the complementary problem. From Lemma A.5, the complementary problem holds iff there exist We first state the following observation: Recall that -
Consequently, from Definition 3.4, we obtain that -
Mauricio Osorio, Víctor Cuevas (2006)
Updates in answer set programming: An approach based on basic structural propertiesTheory and Practice of Logic Programming, 7
-
Martin Slota, João Leite (2010)
On Semantic Update Operators for Answer-Set Programs -
Artif. Intell -
T. Meyer (2001)
On the semantics of combination operationsJournal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 11
-
S. Hansson (1999)
A Textbook Of Belief Dynamics -
Proofs of Theorems 5.9, 5.10, and 5 -
the left-hand side of the given equivalence, revision corresponds with expansion via (RA2), from which the result is immediate. For absorption, we have then from Theorem 3.2, Part 3, we have that -
PROOF. The if-direction is by definition -
(1994)
A.4 Proof of Theorem 4 -
José Alferes, F. Banti, Antonio Brogi, João Leite (2005)
The Refined Extension Principle for Semantics of Dynamic Logic ProgrammingStudia Logica, 79
-
M. Gebser, R. Kaminski, Torsten Schaub (2011)
Under consideration for publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1 Complex Optimization in Answer Set Programming — Extended Version — -
S. Konieczny, J. Lang, P. Marquis (2002)
Distance Based Merging: A General Framework and some Complexity Results -
(2013)
Article 14, Publication date -
Since we deal with a globally fixed language, we first need a few lemmata. LEMMA A.3. Let P, Q be programs, Y an interpretation, and x -
R. Booth (2002)
Social contraction and belief negotiation -
P * Q) thus follows in this case Mod(P)). By iteratively applying Lemma A.3, we obtain that also -
José Alferes, João Leite, L. Pereira, H. Przymusinska, Teodor Przymusinski (2000)
Dynamic updates of non-monotonic knowledge basesJ. Log. Program., 45
-
Let E 1 , E 2 , and E 3 be SE interpretations -
(2009)
Received December ACM Transactions on Computational Logic -
Q) are well-defined by virtue of P and Q being logic programs -
Mod(P)), so Y ∈ Mod(Q) and there exists some Z ∈ Mod(P) such that for each We show that x ∈ Z holds. Suppose this is not the case: Then -
Mauricio Osorio, C. Cortés (2003)
Towards the use of Semantics Contents in ASP for planning and diagnistic in GIS -
Yan Zhang, N. Foo (1998)
Updating Logic Programs -
From Definition 3.4, we have that -
Fernando Zacaŕias, Mauricio Osorio, J. Guadarrama (2005)
Updates in Answer Set Programming based on structural properties -
F. Buccafurri, G. Gottlob (2002)
Multiagent Compromises, Joint Fixpoints, and Stable Models
- Publisher
- Association for Computing Machinery
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2013 by ACM Inc.
- ISSN
- 1529-3785
- DOI
- 10.1145/2480759.2480766
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
A Model-Theoretic Approach to Belief Change in Answer Set Programming JAMES DELGRANDE, Simon Fraser University ¨ TORSTEN SCHAUB, Universitat Potsdam ¨ HANS TOMPITS and STEFAN WOLTRAN, Technische Universitat Wien We address the problem of belief change in (nonmonotonic) logic programming under answer set semantics. Our formal techniques are analogous to those of distance-based belief revision in propositional logic. In particular, we build upon the model theory of logic programs furnished by SE interpretations, where an SE interpretation is a model of a logic program in the same way that a classical interpretation is a model of a propositional formula. Hence we extend techniques from the area of belief revision based on distance between models to belief change in logic programs. We first consider belief revision: for logic programs P and Q, the goal is to determine a program R that corresponds to the revision of P by Q, denoted P Q. We investigate several operators, including (logic program) expansion and two revision operators based on the distance between the SE models of logic programs. It proves to be the case that expansion is an interesting operator in its own right, unlike in classical belief revision where it is
Journal
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL) – Association for Computing Machinery
Published: Jun 1, 2013