Hybrid Rules with Well-Founded Semantics

A general framework is proposed for integration of rules and external first order theories. It is based on the well-founded semantics of normal logic programs and inspired by ideas of Constraint Logic Programming (CLP) and constructive negation for logic programs. Hybrid rules are normal clauses extended with constraints in the bodies; constraints are certain formulae in the language of the external theory. A hybrid program is a pair of a set of hybrid rules and an external theory. Instances of the framework are obtained by specifying the class of external theories, and the class of constraints. An example instance is integration of (non-disjunctive) Datalog with ontologies formalized as description logics. The paper defines a declarative semantics of hybrid programs and a goal-driven formal operational semantics. The latter can be seen as a generalization of SLS-resolution. It provides a basis for hybrid implementations combining Prolog with constraint solvers. Soundness of the operational semantics is proven. Sufficient conditions for decidability of the declarative semantics, and for completeness of the operational semantics are given

Sequentiality vs. Concurrency in Games and Logic

Connections between the sequentiality/concurrency distinction and the semantics of proofs are investigated, with particular reference to games and Linear Logic.Comment: 35 pages, appeared in Mathematical Structures in Computer Scienc

General Logic Programs as Infinite Games

In [vE86] M.H. van Emden introduced a simple game semantics for definite logic programs. Recently [RW05,GRW05], the authors extended this game to apply to logic programs with negation. Moreover, under the assumption that the programs have a finite number of rules, it was demonstrated in [RW05,GRW05] that the game is equivalent to the well-founded semantics of negation. In this paper we present work-in-progress towards demonstrating that the game of [RW05,GRW05] is equivalent to the well-founded semantics even in the case of programs that have a countably infinite number of rules. We argue however that in this case the proof of correctness has to be more involved. More specifically, in order to demonstrate that the game is correct one has to define a refined game in which each of the two players in his first move makes a bet in the form of a countable ordinal. Each ordinal can be considered as a kind of clock that imposes a "time limit" to the moves of the corresponding player. We argue that this refined game can be used to give the proof of correctness for the countably infinite case

On the equivalence between logic programming semantics and argumentation semantics

This work has been supported by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg (LAAMI project), by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, UK), grant Ref. EP/J012084/1 (SAsSy project), by CNPq (Universal 2012 – Proc. 473110/2012-1), and by CNPq/CAPES (Casadinho/PROCAD 2011).Peer reviewedPreprin

Exploiting Game Theory for Analysing Justifications

Justification theory is a unifying semantic framework. While it has its roots in non-monotonic logics, it can be applied to various areas in computer science, especially in explainable reasoning; its most central concept is a justification: an explanation why a property holds (or does not hold) in a model. In this paper, we continue the study of justification theory by means of three major contributions. The first is studying the relation between justification theory and game theory. We show that justification frameworks can be seen as a special type of games. The established connection provides the theoretical foundations for our next two contributions. The second contribution is studying under which condition two different dialects of justification theory (graphs as explanations vs trees as explanations) coincide. The third contribution is establishing a precise criterion of when a semantics induced by justification theory yields consistent results. In the past proving that such semantics were consistent took cumbersome and elaborate proofs. We show that these criteria are indeed satisfied for all common semantics of logic programming. This paper is under consideration for acceptance in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).Comment: Paper presented at the 36th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2019), University Of Calabria, Rende (CS), Italy, September 2020, 15+8 page

Proving Correctness and Completeness of Normal Programs - a Declarative Approach

We advocate a declarative approach to proving properties of logic programs. Total correctness can be separated into correctness, completeness and clean termination; the latter includes non-floundering. Only clean termination depends on the operational semantics, in particular on the selection rule. We show how to deal with correctness and completeness in a declarative way, treating programs only from the logical point of view. Specifications used in this approach are interpretations (or theories). We point out that specifications for correctness may differ from those for completeness, as usually there are answers which are neither considered erroneous nor required to be computed. We present proof methods for correctness and completeness for definite programs and generalize them to normal programs. For normal programs we use the 3-valued completion semantics; this is a standard semantics corresponding to negation as finite failure. The proof methods employ solely the classical 2-valued logic. We use a 2-valued characterization of the 3-valued completion semantics which may be of separate interest. The presented methods are compared with an approach based on operational semantics. We also employ the ideas of this work to generalize a known method of proving termination of normal programs.Comment: To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP). 44 page

Defeasible Logic Programming: An Argumentative Approach

The work reported here introduces Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP), a formalism that combines results of Logic Programming and Defeasible Argumentation. DeLP provides the possibility of representing information in the form of weak rules in a declarative manner, and a defeasible argumentation inference mechanism for warranting the entailed conclusions. In DeLP an argumentation formalism will be used for deciding between contradictory goals. Queries will be supported by arguments that could be defeated by other arguments. A query q will succeed when there is an argument A for q that is warranted, ie, the argument A that supports q is found undefeated by a warrant procedure that implements a dialectical analysis. The defeasible argumentation basis of DeLP allows to build applications that deal with incomplete and contradictory information in dynamic domains. Thus, the resulting approach is suitable for representing agent's knowledge and for providing an argumentation based reasoning mechanism to agents.Comment: 43 pages, to appear in the journal "Theory and Practice of Logic Programming

Datalog Queries Distributing over Components

We investigate the class D of queries that distribute over components. These are the queries that can be evaluated by taking the union of the query results over the connected components of the database instance. We show that it is undecidable whether a (positive) Datalog program distributes over components. Additionally, we show that connected Datalog ¬ (the fragment of Datalog ¬ where all rules are connected) provides an effective syntax for Datalog ¬ programs that distribute over components under the stratified as well as under the well-founded semantics. As a corollary, we obtain a simple proof for one of the main results in previous work [19], namely, that the classic win-move query is in F2 (a particular class of coordination-free queries)