214 research outputs found
A Common View on Strong, Uniform, and Other Notions of Equivalence in Answer-Set Programming
Logic programming under the answer-set semantics nowadays deals with numerous
different notions of program equivalence. This is due to the fact that
equivalence for substitution (known as strong equivalence) and ordinary
equivalence are different concepts. The former holds, given programs P and Q,
iff P can be faithfully replaced by Q within any context R, while the latter
holds iff P and Q provide the same output, that is, they have the same answer
sets. Notions in between strong and ordinary equivalence have been introduced
as theoretical tools to compare incomplete programs and are defined by either
restricting the syntactic structure of the considered context programs R or by
bounding the set A of atoms allowed to occur in R (relativized equivalence).For
the latter approach, different A yield properly different equivalence notions,
in general. For the former approach, however, it turned out that any
``reasonable'' syntactic restriction to R coincides with either ordinary,
strong, or uniform equivalence. In this paper, we propose a parameterization
for equivalence notions which takes care of both such kinds of restrictions
simultaneously by bounding, on the one hand, the atoms which are allowed to
occur in the rule heads of the context and, on the other hand, the atoms which
are allowed to occur in the rule bodies of the context. We introduce a general
semantical characterization which includes known ones as SE-models (for strong
equivalence) or UE-models (for uniform equivalence) as special cases.
Moreover,we provide complexity bounds for the problem in question and sketch a
possible implementation method.
To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP)
Belief merging within fragments of propositional logic
Recently, belief change within the framework of fragments of propositional
logic has gained increasing attention. Previous works focused on belief
contraction and belief revision on the Horn fragment. However, the problem of
belief merging within fragments of propositional logic has been neglected so
far. This paper presents a general approach to define new merging operators
derived from existing ones such that the result of merging remains in the
fragment under consideration. Our approach is not limited to the case of Horn
fragment but applicable to any fragment of propositional logic characterized by
a closure property on the sets of models of its formulae. We study the logical
properties of the proposed operators in terms of satisfaction of merging
postulates, considering in particular distance-based merging operators for Horn
and Krom fragments.Comment: To appear in the Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on
Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2014
Strong Equivalence of Qualitative Optimization Problems
We introduce the framework of qualitative optimization problems (or, simply, optimization problems) to represent preference theories. The formalism uses separate modules to describe the space of outcomes to be compared (the generator) and the preferences on outcomes (the selector). We consider two types of optimization problems. They differ in the way the generator, which we model by a propositional theory, is interpreted: by the standard propositional logic semantics, and by the equilibrium-model (answer-set) semantics. Under the latter interpretation of generators, optimization problems directly generalize answer-set optimization programs proposed previously. We study strong equivalence of optimization problems, which guarantees their interchangeability within any larger context. We characterize several versions of strong equivalence obtained by restricting the class of optimization problems that can be used as extensions and establish the complexity of associated reasoning tasks. Understanding strong equivalence is essential for modular representation of optimization problems and rewriting techniques to simplify them without changing their inherent properties
- …