Software theory change for resilient near-complete specifications

Software evolution and its laws are essential for antifragile system design and development. In this paper we model early-stage perfective and corrective changes to software system architecture in terms of logical operations of expansion and safe contraction on a theory. As a result, we formulate an inference-based notion of property specification resilience for computational systems, intended as resistance to change. The individuated resilient core of a software system is used to characterize adaptability properties

Software theory change for resilient near-complete specifications

Software evolution and its laws are essential for antifragile system design and development. In this paper we model early-stage perfective and corrective changes to software system architecture in terms of logical operations of expansion and safe contraction on a theory. As a result, we formulate an inference-based notion of property specification resilience for computational systems, intended as resistance to change. The individuated resilient core of a software system is used to characterize adaptability properties

AGM-style belief revision of logic programs under answer set semantics

In the past few years, several approaches for revision (and update) of logic programs have been studied. None of these however matched the generality and elegance of the original AGM approach to revision in classical logic. One particular obstacle is the underlying nonmonotonicity of the semantics of logic programs. Recently however, specific revision operators based on the monotonic concept of SE-models (which underlies the answer-set semantics of logic programs) have been proposed. Basing revision of logic programs on sets of SE-models has the drawback that arbitrary sets of SE-models may not necessarily be expressed via a logic program. This situation is similar to the emerging topic of revision in fragments of classical logic. In this paper we show how nonetheless classical AGM-style revision can be extended to various classes of logic programs using the concept of SE-models. That is, we rephrase the AGM postulates in terms of logic programs, provide a semantic construction for revision operators, and then in a representation result show that these approaches coincide. This work is interesting because, on the one hand it shows how the AGM approach can be extended to a seemingly nonmonotonic framework, while on the other hand the formal characterization may provide guiding principles for the development of specific revision operators. © 2013 Springer-Verlag

A Semantic Characterization for ASP Base Revision

International audienceThe paper deals with base revision for Answer Set Programming (ASP). Base revision in classical logic is done by the removal of formulas. Exploiting the non-monotonicity of ASP allows one to propose other revision strategies, namely addition strategy or removal and/or addition strategy. These strategies allow one to define families of rule-based revision operators. The paper presents a semantic characterization of these families of revision operators in terms of answer sets. This semantic characterization allows for equivalently considering the evolution of syntactic logic programs and the evolution of their semantic content. It then studies the logical properties of the proposed operators and gives complexity results

Diseño de un algoritmo para la revisión de creencias entre formas conjuntivas

"El problema a tratar en este trabajo de tesis es proponer un algoritmo para la revisión y actualización de una base de conocimiento usando lógica proposicional. Una base de conocimiento almacena conocimiento en una forma legible para la computadora, usualmente con el fin de obtener razonamiento deductivo automático aplicado a ellas, las cuales contienen una serie de datos en forma de reglas que describen el conocimiento de manera lógicamente consistente usando operadores lógicos"

On the Existence of Characterization Logics and Fundamental Properties of Argumentation Semantics

Given the large variety of existing logical formalisms it is of utmost importance to select the most adequate one for a specific purpose, e.g. for representing the knowledge relevant for a particular application or for using the formalism as a modeling tool for problem solving. Awareness of the nature of a logical formalism, in other words, of its fundamental intrinsic properties, is indispensable and provides the basis of an informed choice. One such intrinsic property of logic-based knowledge representation languages is the context-dependency of pieces of knowledge. In classical propositional logic, for example, there is no such context-dependence: whenever two sets of formulas are equivalent in the sense of having the same models (ordinary equivalence), then they are mutually replaceable in arbitrary contexts (strong equivalence). However, a large number of commonly used formalisms are not like classical logic which leads to a series of interesting developments. It turned out that sometimes, to characterize strong equivalence in formalism L, we can use ordinary equivalence in formalism L0: for example, strong equivalence in normal logic programs under stable models can be characterized by the standard semantics of the logic of here-and-there. Such results about the existence of characterizing logics has rightly been recognized as important for the study of concrete knowledge representation formalisms and raise a fundamental question: Does every formalism have one? In this thesis, we answer this question with a qualified “yes”. More precisely, we show that the important case of considering only finite knowledge bases guarantees the existence of a canonical characterizing formalism. Furthermore, we argue that those characterizing formalisms can be seen as classical, monotonic logics which are uniquely determined (up to isomorphism) regarding their model theory. The other main part of this thesis is devoted to argumentation semantics which play the flagship role in Dung’s abstract argumentation theory. Almost all of them are motivated by an easily understandable intuition of what should be acceptable in the light of conflicts. However, although these intuitions equip us with short and comprehensible formal definitions it turned out that their intrinsic properties such as existence and uniqueness, expressibility, replaceability and verifiability are not that easily accessible. We review the mentioned properties for almost all semantics available in the literature. In doing so we include two main axes: namely first, the distinction between extension-based and labelling-based versions and secondly, the distinction of different kind of argumentation frameworks such as finite or unrestricted ones