A Parameterised Hierarchy of Argumentation Semantics for Extended Logic Programming and its Application to the Well-founded Semantics

Argumentation has proved a useful tool in defining formal semantics for assumption-based reasoning by viewing a proof as a process in which proponents and opponents attack each others arguments by undercuts (attack to an argument's premise) and rebuts (attack to an argument's conclusion). In this paper, we formulate a variety of notions of attack for extended logic programs from combinations of undercuts and rebuts and define a general hierarchy of argumentation semantics parameterised by the notions of attack chosen by proponent and opponent. We prove the equivalence and subset relationships between the semantics and examine some essential properties concerning consistency and the coherence principle, which relates default negation and explicit negation. Most significantly, we place existing semantics put forward in the literature in our hierarchy and identify a particular argumentation semantics for which we prove equivalence to the paraconsistent well-founded semantics with explicit negation, WFSX$_p$. Finally, we present a general proof theory, based on dialogue trees, and show that it is sound and complete with respect to the argumentation semantics.Comment: To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programmin

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

Epistemic Foundation of Stable Model Semantics

Stable model semantics has become a very popular approach for the management of negation in logic programming. This approach relies mainly on the closed world assumption to complete the available knowledge and its formulation has its basis in the so-called Gelfond-Lifschitz transformation. The primary goal of this work is to present an alternative and epistemic-based characterization of stable model semantics, to the Gelfond-Lifschitz transformation. In particular, we show that stable model semantics can be defined entirely as an extension of the Kripke-Kleene semantics. Indeed, we show that the closed world assumption can be seen as an additional source of `falsehood' to be added cumulatively to the Kripke-Kleene semantics. Our approach is purely algebraic and can abstract from the particular formalism of choice as it is based on monotone operators (under the knowledge order) over bilattices only.Comment: 41 pages. To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP

Abduction in Well-Founded Semantics and Generalized Stable Models

Abductive logic programming offers a formalism to declaratively express and solve problems in areas such as diagnosis, planning, belief revision and hypothetical reasoning. Tabled logic programming offers a computational mechanism that provides a level of declarativity superior to that of Prolog, and which has supported successful applications in fields such as parsing, program analysis, and model checking. In this paper we show how to use tabled logic programming to evaluate queries to abductive frameworks with integrity constraints when these frameworks contain both default and explicit negation. The result is the ability to compute abduction over well-founded semantics with explicit negation and answer sets. Our approach consists of a transformation and an evaluation method. The transformation adjoins to each objective literal $O$ in a program, an objective literal $not(O)$ along with rules that ensure that $not(O)$ will be true if and only if $O$ is false. We call the resulting program a {\em dual} program. The evaluation method, \wfsmeth, then operates on the dual program. \wfsmeth{} is sound and complete for evaluating queries to abductive frameworks whose entailment method is based on either the well-founded semantics with explicit negation, or on answer sets. Further, \wfsmeth{} is asymptotically as efficient as any known method for either class of problems. In addition, when abduction is not desired, \wfsmeth{} operating on a dual program provides a novel tabling method for evaluating queries to ground extended programs whose complexity and termination properties are similar to those of the best tabling methods for the well-founded semantics. A publicly available meta-interpreter has been developed for \wfsmeth{} using the XSB system.Comment: 48 pages; To appear in Theory and Practice in Logic Programmin

Well-Founded Semantics for Extended Datalog and Ontological Reasoning

The Datalog± family of expressive extensions of Datalog has recently been introduced as a new paradigm for query answering over ontologies, which captures and extends several common description logics. It extends plain Datalog by features such as existentially quantified rule heads and, at the same time, restricts the rule syntax so as to achieve decidability and tractability. In this paper, we continue the research on Datalog±. More precisely, we generalize the well-founded semantics (WFS), as the standard semantics for nonmonotonic normal programs in the database context, to Datalog± programs with negation under the unique name assumption (UNA). We prove that for guarded Datalog± with negation under the standard WFS, answering normal Boolean conjunctive queries is decidable, and we provide precise complexity results for this problem, namely, in particular, completeness for PTIME (resp., 2-EXPTIME) in the data (resp., combined) complexity

Transformation-Based Bottom-Up Computation of the Well-Founded Model

We present a framework for expressing bottom-up algorithms to compute the well-founded model of non-disjunctive logic programs. Our method is based on the notion of conditional facts and elementary program transformations studied by Brass and Dix for disjunctive programs. However, even if we restrict their framework to nondisjunctive programs, their residual program can grow to exponential size, whereas for function-free programs our program remainder is always polynomial in the size of the extensional database (EDB). We show that particular orderings of our transformations (we call them strategies) correspond to well-known computational methods like the alternating fixpoint approach, the well-founded magic sets method and the magic alternating fixpoint procedure. However, due to the confluence of our calculi, we come up with computations of the well-founded model that are provably better than these methods. In contrast to other approaches, our transformation method treats magic set transformed programs correctly, i.e. it always computes a relevant part of the well-founded model of the original program.Comment: 43 pages, 3 figure