Partial Meet Revision and Contraction in Logic Programs

The recent years have seen several proposals aimed at placing the revision of logic programs within the belief change frameworks established for classical logic. A crucial challenge of this task lies in the nonmono-tonicity of standard logic programming semantics. Existing approaches have thus used the monotonic characterisation via SE-models to develop semantic revision operators, which however neglect any syntactic information, or reverted to a syntax-oriented belief base approach altogether. In this paper, we bridge the gap between semantic and syntactic techniques by adapting the idea of a partial meet construction from classical belief change. This type of construction allows us to define new model-based operators for revising as well as contracting logic programs that preserve the syntactic structure of the programs involved. We demonstrate the rationality of our operators by testing them against the classic AGM or alternative belief change postulates adapted to the logic programming setting. We further present an algorithm that reduces the partial meet revision or contraction of a logic program to performing revision or contraction only on the relevant subsets of that program.

[1]  Kewen Wang,et al.  An Approach to Forgetting in Disjunctive Logic Programs that Preserves Strong Equivalence , 2014, ArXiv.

[2]  R. Parikh Beliefs, belief revision, and splitting languages , 1999 .

[3]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States , 2008 .

[4]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Belief Revision and Default Reasoning: Syntax-Based Approaches , 1991, KR.

[5]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions , 1985, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[6]  Maurice Pagnucco,et al.  Transitively Relational Partial Meet Horn Contraction , 2011, IJCAI.

[7]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  A Model-Theoretic Approach to Belief Change in Answer Set Programming , 2013, TOCL.

[8]  Mauricio Osorio,et al.  Updates in answer set programming: An approach based on basic structural properties , 2006, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[9]  David Pearce,et al.  Strongly equivalent logic programs , 2001, ACM Trans. Comput. Log..

[10]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  New operators for theory change , 2008 .

[11]  James P. Delgrande A program-level approach to revising logic programs under the answer set semantics , 2010, Theory Pract. Log. Program..

[12]  Kewen Wang,et al.  A Syntax-Independent Approach to Forgetting in Disjunctive Logic Programs , 2015, AAAI.

[13]  Hudson Turner,et al.  Strong equivalence made easy: nested expressions and weight constraints , 2003, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[14]  Hirofumi Katsuno,et al.  Propositional Knowledge Base Revision and Minimal Change , 1991, Artif. Intell..

[15]  Renata Wassermann,et al.  Base Revision for Ontology Debugging , 2009, J. Log. Comput..

[16]  Luís Moniz Pereira,et al.  Generalizing Updates: From Models to Programs , 1997, LPKR.

[17]  Gabriele Kern-Isberner,et al.  Belief Base Change Operations for Answer Set Programming , 2012, JELIA.

[18]  Katsumi Inoue,et al.  Characterization Theorems for Revision of Logic Programs , 2013, LPNMR.

[19]  James P. Delgrande,et al.  Horn Clause Contraction Functions , 2013, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[20]  P G rdenfors,et al.  Knowledge in flux: modeling the dynamics of epistemic states , 1988 .

[21]  Kewen Wang,et al.  Semantic forgetting in answer set programming , 2008, Artif. Intell..

[22]  Kewen Wang,et al.  Rule Revision in Normal DL Logic Programs , 2013, RR.

[23]  Renata Wassermann,et al.  On AGM for Non-Classical Logics , 2011, J. Philos. Log..

[24]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  AGM-Style Belief Revision of Logic Programs under Answer Set Semantics , 2008, LPNMR.

[25]  João Leite,et al.  Robust Equivalence Models for Semantic Updates of Answer-Set Programs , 2012, KR.