Justifications and Blocking Sets in a Rule-Based Answer Set Computation

Notions of justifications for logic programs under answer set semantics have been recently studied for atom-based approaches or argumentation approaches. The paper addresses the question in a rule-based answer set computation: the search algorithm does not guess on the truth or falsity of an atom but on the application or non application of a non monotonic rule. In this view, justifications are sets of ground rules with particular properties. Properties of these justifications are established; in particular the notion of blocking set (a reason incompatible with an answer set) is defined, that permits to explain computation failures. Backjumping, learning, debugging and explanations are possible applications

Modular Logic Programming: Full Compositionality and Conflict Handling for Practical Reasoning

With the recent development of a new ubiquitous nature of data and the profusity of available knowledge, there is nowadays the need to reason from multiple sources of often incomplete and uncertain knowledge. Our goal was to provide a way to combine declarative knowledge bases – represented as logic programming modules under the answer set semantics – as well as the individual results one already inferred from them, without having to recalculate the results for their composition and without having to explicitly know the original logic programming encodings that produced such results. This posed us many challenges such as how to deal with fundamental problems of modular frameworks for logic programming, namely how to define a general compositional semantics that allows us to compose unrestricted modules. Building upon existing logic programming approaches, we devised a framework capable of composing generic logic programming modules while preserving the crucial property of compositionality, which informally means that the combination of models of individual modules are the models of the union of modules. We are also still able to reason in the presence of knowledge containing incoherencies, which is informally characterised by a logic program that does not have an answer set due to cyclic dependencies of an atom from its default negation. In this thesis we also discuss how the same approach can be extended to deal with probabilistic knowledge in a modular and compositional way. We depart from the Modular Logic Programming approach in Oikarinen & Janhunen (2008); Janhunen et al. (2009) which achieved a restricted form of compositionality of answer set programming modules. We aim at generalising this framework of modular logic programming and start by lifting restrictive conditions that were originally imposed, and use alternative ways of combining these (so called by us) Generalised Modular Logic Programs. We then deal with conflicts arising in generalised modular logic programming and provide modular justifications and debugging for the generalised modular logic programming setting, where justification models answer the question: Why is a given interpretation indeed an Answer Set? and Debugging models answer the question: Why is a given interpretation not an Answer Set? In summary, our research deals with the problematic of formally devising a generic modular logic programming framework, providing: operators for combining arbitrary modular logic programs together with a compositional semantics; We characterise conflicts that occur when composing access control policies, which are generalisable to our context of generalised modular logic programming, and ways of dealing with them syntactically: provided a unification for justification and debugging of logic programs; and semantically: provide a new semantics capable of dealing with incoherences. We also provide an extension of modular logic programming to a probabilistic setting. These goals are already covered with published work. A prototypical tool implementing the unification of justifications and debugging is available for download from http://cptkirk.sourceforge.net

Relating Weight Constraint and Aggregate Programs: Semantics and Representation

Weight constraint and aggregate programs are among the most widely used logic programs with constraints. In this paper, we relate the semantics of these two classes of programs, namely the stable model semantics for weight constraint programs and the answer set semantics based on conditional satisfaction for aggregate programs. Both classes of programs are instances of logic programs with constraints, and in particular, the answer set semantics for aggregate programs can be applied to weight constraint programs. We show that the two semantics are closely related. First, we show that for a broad class of weight constraint programs, called strongly satisfiable programs, the two semantics coincide. When they disagree, a stable model admitted by the stable model semantics may be circularly justified. We show that the gap between the two semantics can be closed by transforming a weight constraint program to a strongly satisfiable one, so that no circular models may be generated under the current implementation of the stable model semantics. We further demonstrate the close relationship between the two semantics by formulating a transformation from weight constraint programs to logic programs with nested expressions which preserves the answer set semantics. Our study on the semantics leads to an investigation of a methodological issue, namely the possibility of compact representation of aggregate programs by weight constraint programs. We show that almost all standard aggregates can be encoded by weight constraints compactly. This makes it possible to compute the answer sets of aggregate programs using the ASP solvers for weight constraint programs. This approach is compared experimentally with the ones where aggregates are handled more explicitly, which show that the weight constraint encoding of aggregates enables a competitive approach to answer set computation for aggregate programs.Comment: To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP), 2011. 30 page

Lazy Model Expansion: Interleaving Grounding with Search

Finding satisfying assignments for the variables involved in a set of constraints can be cast as a (bounded) model generation problem: search for (bounded) models of a theory in some logic. The state-of-the-art approach for bounded model generation for rich knowledge representation languages, like ASP, FO(.) and Zinc, is ground-and-solve: reduce the theory to a ground or propositional one and apply a search algorithm to the resulting theory. An important bottleneck is the blowup of the size of the theory caused by the reduction phase. Lazily grounding the theory during search is a way to overcome this bottleneck. We present a theoretical framework and an implementation in the context of the FO(.) knowledge representation language. Instead of grounding all parts of a theory, justifications are derived for some parts of it. Given a partial assignment for the grounded part of the theory and valid justifications for the formulas of the non-grounded part, the justifications provide a recipe to construct a complete assignment that satisfies the non-grounded part. When a justification for a particular formula becomes invalid during search, a new one is derived; if that fails, the formula is split in a part to be grounded and a part that can be justified. The theoretical framework captures existing approaches for tackling the grounding bottleneck such as lazy clause generation and grounding-on-the-fly, and presents a generalization of the 2-watched literal scheme. We present an algorithm for lazy model expansion and integrate it in a model generator for FO(ID), a language extending first-order logic with inductive definitions. The algorithm is implemented as part of the state-of-the-art FO(ID) Knowledge-Base System IDP. Experimental results illustrate the power and generality of the approach

Loop Formulas for Description Logic Programs

Description 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 {\em 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.Comment: 29 pages, 1 figures (in pdf), a short version appeared in ICLP'1