A program-level approach to revising logic programs under the answer set semantics

An approach to the revision of logic programs under the answer set semantics is presented. For programs P and Q, the goal is to determine the answer sets that correspond to the revision of P by Q, denoted P * Q. A fundamental principle of classical (AGM) revision, and the one that guides the approach here, is the success postulate. In AGM revision, this stipulates that α ∈ K * α. By analogy with the success postulate, for programs P and Q, this means that the answer sets of Q will in some sense be contained in those of P * Q. The essential idea is that for P * Q, a three-valued answer set for Q, consisting of positive and negative literals, is first determined. The positive literals constitute a regular answer set, while the negated literals make up a minimal set of naf literals required to produce the answer set from Q. These literals are propagated to the program P, along with those rules of Q that are not decided by these literals. The approach differs from work in update logic programs in two main respects. First, we ensure that the revising logic program has higher priority, and so we satisfy the success postulate; second, for the preference implicit in a revision P * Q, the program Q as a whole takes precedence over P, unlike update logic programs, since answer sets of Q are propagated to P. We show that a core group of the AGM postulates are satisfied, as are the postulates that have been proposed for update logic programs.

[1]  Torsten Schaub,et al.  A consistency-based approach for belief change , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[2]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Logic Programs with Classical Negation , 1990, ICLP.

[3]  Wolfgang Faber,et al.  The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning , 2002, TOCL.

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

[5]  Norman Y. Foo,et al.  Updating Logic Programs , 1998, ECAI.

[6]  Alex M. Andrew,et al.  Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving , 2004 .

[7]  Timo Soininen,et al.  Extending and implementing the stable model semantics , 2000, Artif. Intell..

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

[9]  José Júlio Alferes,et al.  Dynamic updates of non-monotonic knowledge bases , 2000, J. Log. Program..

[10]  Mary-Anne Williams,et al.  Iterated Theory Base Change: A Computational Model , 1995, IJCAI.

[11]  Norman Y. Foo,et al.  Towards Generalized Rule-based Updates , 1997, IJCAI.

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

[13]  Martin Gebser,et al.  Conflict-Driven Answer Set Solving , 2007, IJCAI.

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

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

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

[17]  Chiaki Sakama,et al.  Updating Extended Logic Programs through Abduction , 1999, LPNMR.