Syntax-Preserving Belief Change Operators for Logic Programs

Recent methods have adapted the well-established AGM and belief base frameworks for belief change to cover belief revision in logic programs. In this study here, we present two new sets of belief change operators for logic programs. They focus on preserving the explicit relationships expressed in the rules of a program, a feature that is missing in purely semantic approaches that consider programs only in their entirety. In particular, operators of the latter class fail to satisfy preservation and support, two important properties for belief change in logic programs required to ensure intuitive results. We address this shortcoming of existing approaches by introducing partial meet and ensconcement constructions for logic program belief change, which allow us to define syntax-preserving operators for satisfying preservation and support. Our work is novel in that our constructions not only preserve more information from a logic program during a change operation than existing ones, but they also facilitate natural definitions of contraction operators, the first in the field to the best of our knowledge. To evaluate the rationality of our operators, we translate the revision and contraction postulates from the AGM and belief base frameworks to the logic programming setting. We show that our operators fully comply with the belief base framework and formally state the interdefinability between our operators. We further compare our approach to two state-of-the-art logic program revision methods and demonstrate that our operators address the shortcomings of one and generalise the other method.

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

[2]  G. Shafer The Enterprise of Knowledge: An Essay on Knowledge, Credal Probability, and Chance , 1982 .

[3]  SVEN OVE HANSSON,et al.  Reversing the Levi identity , 1993, J. Philos. Log..

[4]  Thomas Caridroit,et al.  Contraction in propositional logic , 2017, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[5]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  On the semantics of updates in databases , 1983, PODS.

[6]  TurnerHudson Strong equivalence made easy: nested expressions and weight constraints , 2003 .

[7]  Hans Tompits,et al.  A framework for compiling preferences in logic programs , 2002, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

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

[9]  Mukesh Dalal,et al.  Investigations into a Theory of Knowledge Base Revision , 1988, AAAI.

[10]  Kewen Wang,et al.  Partial Meet Revision and Contraction in Logic Programs , 2015, AAAI.

[11]  Katsumi Inoue,et al.  Characterization of Logic Program Revision as an Extension of Propositional Revision , 2016, Theory Pract. Log. Program..

[12]  Hans Tompits,et al.  On properties of update sequences based on causal rejection , 2001, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[13]  Hirofumi Katsuno,et al.  On the Difference between Updating a Knowledge Base and Revising It , 1991, KR.

[14]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  A Textbook Of Belief Dynamics , 1999 .

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

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

[17]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Model-based recasting in answer-set programming , 2013, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[18]  Renata Wassermann Resource Bounded Belief Revision , 1999 .

[19]  João Leite,et al.  The rise and fall of semantic rule updates based on SE-models , 2014, Theory Pract. Log. Program..

[20]  Ken Satoh Nonmonotonic Reasoning by Minimal Belief Revision , 1988, FGCS.

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

[22]  David Makinson,et al.  On the status of the postulate of recovery in the logic of theory change , 1987, J. Philos. Log..

[23]  Hans Tompits,et al.  A Classification and Survey of Preference Handling Approaches in Nonmonotonic Reasoning , 2004, Comput. Intell..

[24]  Reinhard Niederée Multiple contraction. A further case against Gärdenfors' principle of recovery , 1989, The Logic of Theory Change.

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

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

[27]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  A textbook of belief dynamics - theory change and database updating , 1999, Applied logic series.

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

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

[30]  M. Helmert,et al.  Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning , 2008 .

[31]  John McCarthy,et al.  Programs with common sense , 1960 .

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

[33]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  Local Change , 2002, Stud Logica.

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

[35]  Ka-Shu Wong Sound and Complete Inference Rules for SE-Consequence , 2008, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[36]  Torsten Schaub,et al.  A semantic framework for preference handling in answer set programming , 2003, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

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

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

[39]  Eduardo L. Fermé,et al.  An Axiomatic Characterization of Ensconcement-Based Contraction , 2008, J. Log. Comput..

[40]  I. Levi,et al.  The Enterprise of Knowledge: An Essay on Knowledge, Credal Probability, and Chance , 1983 .

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

[42]  J. Lloyd Foundations of Logic Programming , 1984, Symbolic Computation.

[43]  Philippe Roussel,et al.  The birth of Prolog , 1993, HOPL-II.

[44]  Hans Rott,et al.  Modellings for Belief Change: Base Contraction, Multiple Contraction, and Epistemic Entrenchment , 1992, JELIA.

[45]  Robert A. Kowalski,et al.  Predicate Logic as Programming Language , 1974, IFIP Congress.

[46]  William Harper,et al.  Rational Conceptual Change , 1976, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.

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

[48]  Jon Doyle,et al.  A Truth Maintenance System , 1979, Artif. Intell..

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

[50]  Mary-Anne Williams,et al.  On the Logic of Theory Base Change , 1994, JELIA.

[51]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Simplifying Logic Programs Under Uniform and Strong Equivalence , 2004, LPNMR.

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

[53]  Abdul Sattar,et al.  Reconsidering AGM-Style Belief Revision in the Context of Logic Programs , 2016, ECAI.

[54]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  Belief contraction without recovery , 1991, Stud Logica.

[55]  Abhaya C. Nayak Foundational belief change , 1994, J. Philos. Log..

[56]  Thomas Eiter,et al.  Preferred Answer Sets for Extended Logic Programs , 1999, Artif. Intell..

[57]  André Fuhrmann,et al.  Theory contraction through base contraction , 1991, J. Philos. Log..

[58]  I. Levi Subjunctives, dispositions and chances , 1977, Synthese.

[59]  Chiaki Sakama,et al.  Equivalence of Logic Programs Under Updates , 2004, JELIA.

[60]  André Fuhrmann,et al.  A survey of multiple contractions , 1994, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[61]  Hans Tompits,et al.  A Preference-Based Framework for Updating Logic Programs , 2007, LPNMR.