5,581 research outputs found
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
An encompassing framework for Paraconsistent Logic Programs
AbstractWe propose a framework which extends Antitonic Logic Programs [Damásio and Pereira, in: Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Springer, 2001, p. 748] to an arbitrary complete bilattice of truth-values, where belief and doubt are explicitly represented. Inspired by Ginsberg and Fitting's bilattice approaches, this framework allows a precise definition of important operators found in logic programming, such as explicit and default negation. In particular, it leads to a natural semantical integration of explicit and default negation through the Coherence Principle [Pereira and Alferes, in: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1992, p. 102], according to which explicit negation entails default negation. We then define Coherent Answer Sets, and the Paraconsistent Well-founded Model semantics, generalizing many paraconsistent semantics for logic programs. In particular, Paraconsistent Well-Founded Semantics with eXplicit negation (WFSXp) [Alferes et al., J. Automated Reas. 14 (1) (1995) 93–147; Damásio, PhD thesis, 1996]. The framework is an extension of Antitonic Logic Programs for most cases, and is general enough to capture Probabilistic Deductive Databases, Possibilistic Logic Programming, Hybrid Probabilistic Logic Programs, and Fuzzy Logic Programming. Thus, we have a powerful mathematical formalism for dealing simultaneously with default, paraconsistency, and uncertainty reasoning. Results are provided about how our semantical framework deals with inconsistent information and with its propagation by the rules of the program
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. 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
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
in a program, an objective literal along with rules that ensure
that will be true if and only if 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
A Goal-Directed Implementation of Query Answering for Hybrid MKNF Knowledge Bases
Ontologies and rules are usually loosely coupled in knowledge representation
formalisms. In fact, ontologies use open-world reasoning while the leading
semantics for rules use non-monotonic, closed-world reasoning. One exception is
the tightly-coupled framework of Minimal Knowledge and Negation as Failure
(MKNF), which allows statements about individuals to be jointly derived via
entailment from an ontology and inferences from rules. Nonetheless, the
practical usefulness of MKNF has not always been clear, although recent work
has formalized a general resolution-based method for querying MKNF when rules
are taken to have the well-founded semantics, and the ontology is modeled by a
general oracle. That work leaves open what algorithms should be used to relate
the entailments of the ontology and the inferences of rules. In this paper we
provide such algorithms, and describe the implementation of a query-driven
system, CDF-Rules, for hybrid knowledge bases combining both (non-monotonic)
rules under the well-founded semantics and a (monotonic) ontology, represented
by a CDF Type-1 (ALQ) theory. To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic
Programming (TPLP
Nonmonotonic Trust Management for P2P Applications
Community decisions about access control in virtual communities are
non-monotonic in nature. This means that they cannot be expressed in current,
monotonic trust management languages such as the family of Role Based Trust
Management languages (RT). To solve this problem we propose RT-, which adds a
restricted form of negation to the standard RT language, thus admitting a
controlled form of non-monotonicity. The semantics of RT- is discussed and
presented in terms of the well-founded semantics for Logic Programs. Finally we
discuss how chain discovery can be accomplished for RT-.Comment: This paper appears in the proceedings of the 1st International
Workshop on Security and Trust Management (STM 2005). To appear in ENTC
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
- …