On Semantic Update Operators for Answer-Set Programs

Logic programs under the stable models semantics, or answer-set programs, provide an expressive rule based knowledge representation framework, featuring formal, declarative and well-understood semantics. However, handling the evolution of rule bases is still a largely open problem. The AGM framework for belief change was shown to give inappropriate results when directly applied to logic programs under a nonmonotonic semantics such as the stable models. Most approaches to address this issue, developed so far, proposed update operators based on syntactic conditions for rule rejection. More recently, AGM revision has been successfully applied to a significantly more expressive semantic characterisation of logic programs based on SE models. This is an important step, as it changes the focus from the evolution of a syntactic representation of a rule base to the evolution of its semantic content. In this paper, we borrow results from the area of belief update to tackle the problem of updating (instead of revising) logic programs. We prove a representation theorem which makes it possible to constructively define any operator satisfying a set of postulates derived from Katsuno and Mendelzon's postulates for belief update. We define a specific operator based on this theorem and compare the behaviour of this operator with syntactic update operators defined in the literature. Perhaps surprisingly, we uncover a very serious drawback in a large class of semantic update operators to which it belongs.

[1]  Ján Sefránek,et al.  Irrelevant Updates and Nonmonotonic Assumptions , 2006, JELIA.

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

[3]  Norman Y. Foo,et al.  A Unified Framework for Representing Logic Program Updates , 2005, AAAI.

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

[5]  Jürgen Dix,et al.  A Classification Theory of Semantics of Normal Logic Programs: I. Strong Properties , 1995, Fundam. Informaticae.

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

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

[8]  Andreas Herzig,et al.  Propositional Belief Base Update and Minimal Change , 1999, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Pedro Cabalar,et al.  Propositional theories are strongly equivalent to logic programs , 2007, Theory Pract. Log. Program..

[10]  Marianne Winslett,et al.  Updating logical databases , 1990, Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science.

[11]  Jürgen Dix,et al.  A Classification Theory of Semantics of Normal Logic Programs: II. Weak Properties , 1995, Fundam. Informaticae.

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

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

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

[15]  Chiaki Sakama,et al.  An abductive framework for computing knowledge base updates , 2003, Theory Pract. Log. Program..

[16]  Adrian Walker,et al.  Towards a Theory of Declarative Knowledge , 1988, Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming..

[17]  Victor W. Marek,et al.  Revision Programming , 1998, Theor. Comput. Sci..

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

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

[20]  José Júlio Alferes,et al.  The Refined Extension Principle for Semantics of Dynamic Logic Programming , 2005, Stud Logica.