Implementing Default and Autoepistemic Logics via the Logic of GK

The logic of knowledge and justified assumptions, also known as logic of grounded knowledge (GK), was proposed by Lin and Shoham as a general logic for nonmonotonic reasoning. To date, it has been used to embed in it default logic (propositional case), autoepistemic logic, Turner's logic of universal causation, and general logic programming under stable model semantics. Besides showing the generality of GK as a logic for nonmonotonic reasoning, these embeddings shed light on the relationships among these other logics. In this paper, for the first time, we show how the logic of GK can be embedded into disjunctive logic programming in a polynomial but non-modular translation with new variables. The result can then be used to compute the extension/expansion semantics of default logic, autoepistemic logic and Turner's logic of universal causation by disjunctive ASP solvers such as claspD(-2), DLV, GNT and cmodels.Comment: Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2014

Characterizing and Extending Answer Set Semantics using Possibility Theory

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a popular framework for modeling combinatorial problems. However, ASP cannot easily be used for reasoning about uncertain information. Possibilistic ASP (PASP) is an extension of ASP that combines possibilistic logic and ASP. In PASP a weight is associated with each rule, where this weight is interpreted as the certainty with which the conclusion can be established when the body is known to hold. As such, it allows us to model and reason about uncertain information in an intuitive way. In this paper we present new semantics for PASP, in which rules are interpreted as constraints on possibility distributions. Special models of these constraints are then identified as possibilistic answer sets. In addition, since ASP is a special case of PASP in which all the rules are entirely certain, we obtain a new characterization of ASP in terms of constraints on possibility distributions. This allows us to uncover a new form of disjunction, called weak disjunction, that has not been previously considered in the literature. In addition to introducing and motivating the semantics of weak disjunction, we also pinpoint its computational complexity. In particular, while the complexity of most reasoning tasks coincides with standard disjunctive ASP, we find that brave reasoning for programs with weak disjunctions is easier.Comment: 39 pages and 16 pages appendix with proofs. This article has been accepted for publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, Copyright Cambridge University Pres

Reason Maintenance - State of the Art

This paper describes state of the art in reason maintenance with a focus on its future usage in the KiWi project. To give a bigger picture of the field, it also mentions closely related issues such as non-monotonic logic and paraconsistency. The paper is organized as follows: first, two motivating scenarios referring to semantic wikis are presented which are then used to introduce the different reason maintenance techniques

Towards efficient default reasoning

A decision method for Reiter's default logic is developed. It can determine whether a default theory has an extension, whether a formula is in some extension of a default theory and whether a formula is in every extension of a default theory. The method handles full propositional default logic. It can be implemented to work in polynomial space and by using only a theorem prover for the underlying propositional logic as a subroutine. The method divides default reasoning into two major subtasks: the search task of examining every alternative for extensions, which is solved by backtracking search, and the classical reasoning task, which can be implemented by a theorem prover for the underlying classical logic. Special emphasis is given to the search problem. The decision method employs a new compact representation of extensions which reduces the search space. Efficient techniques for pruning the search space further are developed

Dynamic reasoning in a knowledge-based system

Any space based system, whether it is a robot arm assembling parts in space or an onboard system monitoring the space station, has to react to changes which cannot be foreseen. As a result, apart from having domain-specific knowledge as in current expert systems, a space based AI system should also have general principles of change. This paper presents a modal logic which can not only represent change but also reason with it. Three primitive operations, expansion, contraction and revision are introduced and axioms which specify how the knowledge base should change when the external world changes are also specified. Accordingly the notion of dynamic reasoning is introduced, which unlike the existing forms of reasoning, provide general principles of change. Dynamic reasoning is based on two main principles, namely minimize change and maximize coherence. A possible-world semantics which incorporates the above two principles is also discussed. The paper concludes by discussing how the dynamic reasoning system can be used to specify actions and hence form an integral part of an autonomous reasoning and planning system

Computing abduction by using TMS with top-down expectation

AbstractWe present a method to compute abduction in logic programming. We translate an abductive framework into a normal logic program with integrity constraints and show the correspondence between generalized stable models and stable models for the translation of the abductive framework. Abductive explanations for an observation can be found from the stable models for the translated program by adding a special kind of integrity constraint for the observation. Then, we show a bottom-up procedure to compute stable models for a normal logic program with integrity constraints. The proposed procedure excludes the unnecessary construction of stable models on early stages of the procedure by checking integrity constraints during the construction and by deriving some facts from integrity constraints. Although a bottom-up procedure has the disadvantage of constructing stable models not related to an observation for computing abductive explanations in general, our procedure avoids the disadvantage by expecting which rule should be used for satisfaction of integrity constraints and starting bottom-up computation based on the expectation. This expectation is not only a technique to scope rule selection but also an indispensable part of our stable model construction because the expectation is done for dynamically generated constraints as well as the constraint for the observation

Semantics of logic programs with explicit negation

After a historical introduction, the bulk of the thesis concerns the study of a declarative semantics for logic programs. The main original contributions are: ² WFSX (Well–Founded Semantics with eXplicit negation), a new semantics for logic programs with explicit negation (i.e. extended logic programs), which compares favourably in its properties with other extant semantics. ² A generic characterization schema that facilitates comparisons among a diversity of semantics of extended logic programs, including WFSX. ² An autoepistemic and a default logic corresponding to WFSX, which solve existing problems of the classical approaches to autoepistemic and default logics, and clarify the meaning of explicit negation in logic programs. ² A framework for defining a spectrum of semantics of extended logic programs based on the abduction of negative hypotheses. This framework allows for the characterization of different levels of scepticism/credulity, consensuality, and argumentation. One of the semantics of abduction coincides with WFSX. ² O–semantics, a semantics that uniquely adds more CWA hypotheses to WFSX. The techniques used for doing so are applicable as well to the well–founded semantics of normal logic programs. ² By introducing explicit negation into logic programs contradiction may appear. I present two approaches for dealing with contradiction, and show their equivalence. One of the approaches consists in avoiding contradiction, and is based on restrictions in the adoption of abductive hypotheses. The other approach consists in removing contradiction, and is based in a transformation of contradictory programs into noncontradictory ones, guided by the reasons for contradiction