scholarly journals Negation as a Resource: a Novel View on Answer Set Semantics*

2015 ◽  
Vol 140 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 279-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefania Costantini ◽  
Andrea Formisano
Keyword(s):  
Answer Set Semantics ◽  
Answer Set

scholarly journals Paracoherent Answer Set Semantics meets Argumentation Frameworks

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 688-704
Author(s):  
GIOVANNI AMENDOLA ◽  
FRANCESCO RICCA
Keyword(s):  
Logic Programming ◽  
Logic Program ◽  
Great Success ◽  
Argumentation Framework ◽  
Computational Costs ◽  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Answer Set Semantics ◽  
Answer Sets ◽  
Answer Set

AbstractIn the last years, abstract argumentation has met with great success in AI, since it has served to capture several non-monotonic logics for AI. Relations between argumentation framework (AF) semantics and logic programming ones are investigating more and more. In particular, great attention has been given to the well-known stable extensions of an AF, that are closely related to the answer sets of a logic program. However, if a framework admits a small incoherent part, no stable extension can be provided. To overcome this shortcoming, two semantics generalizing stable extensions have been studied, namely semi-stable and stage. In this paper, we show that another perspective is possible on incoherent AFs, called paracoherent extensions, as they have a counterpart in paracoherent answer set semantics. We compare this perspective with semi-stable and stage semantics, by showing that computational costs remain unchanged, and moreover an interesting symmetric behaviour is maintained.

scholarly journals Characterizing and extending answer set semantics using possibility theory

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
KIM BAUTERS ◽  
STEVEN SCHOCKAERT ◽  
MARTINE DE COCK ◽  
DIRK VERMEIR
Keyword(s):  
Possibility Theory ◽  
Combinatorial Problems ◽  
The Body ◽  
Uncertain Information ◽  
Possibilistic Logic ◽  
Possibility Distributions ◽  
Answer Set Semantics ◽  
Answer Sets ◽  
Answer Set

AbstractAnswer Set Programming (ASP) is a popular framework for modelling combinatorial problems. However, ASP cannot be used easily for reasoning about uncertain information. Possibilistic ASP (PASP) is an extension of ASP that combines possibilistic logic and ASP. In PASP a weight is associated with each rule, whereas this weight is interpreted as the certainty with which the conclusion can be established when the body is known to hold. As such, it allows us to model and reason about uncertain information in an intuitive way. In this paper we present new semantics for PASP in which rules are interpreted as constraints on possibility distributions. Special models of these constraints are then identified as possibilistic answer sets. In addition, since ASP is a special case of PASP in which all the rules are entirely certain, we obtain a new characterization of ASP in terms of constraints on possibility distributions. This allows us to uncover a new form of disjunction, called weak disjunction, that has not been previously considered in the literature. In addition to introducing and motivating the semantics of weak disjunction, we also pinpoint its computational complexity. In particular, while the complexity of most reasoning tasks coincides with standard disjunctive ASP, we find that brave reasoning for programs with weak disjunctions is easier.

scholarly journals Preferences and Nonmonotonic Reasoning

AI Magazine ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerhard Brewka ◽  
Ilkka Niemela ◽  
Miroslaw Truszczynski
Keyword(s):  
Logic Programming ◽  
Nonmonotonic Reasoning ◽  
Nonmonotonic Logic ◽  
Preference Information ◽  
The World ◽  
Extended Logic Programming ◽  
Answer Set Semantics ◽  
Nonmonotonic Logics ◽  
Answer Set

We give an overview of the multifaceted relationship between nonmonotonic logics and preferences. We discuss how the nonmonotonicity of reasoning itself is closely tied to preferences reasoners have on models of the world or, as we often say here, possible belief sets. Selecting extended logic programming with the answer-set semantics as a "generic" nonmonotonic logic, we show how that logic defines preferred belief sets and how preferred belief sets allow us to represent and interpret normative statements. Conflicts among program rules (more generally, defaults) give rise to alternative preferred belief sets. We discuss how such conflicts can be resolved based on implicit specificity or on explicit rankings of defaults. Finally, we comment on formalisms which explicitly represent preferences on properties of belief sets. Such formalisms either build preference information directly into rules and modify the semantics of the logic appropriately, or specify preferences on belief sets independently of the mechanism to define them.

scholarly journals A common view on strong, uniform, and other notions of equivalence in answer-set programming

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEFAN WOLTRAN
Keyword(s):  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Answer Set Programming ◽  
Common View ◽  
Complexity Bounds ◽  
Special Cases ◽  
Implementation Method ◽  
The One ◽  
Answer Set Semantics ◽  
Answer Sets ◽  
Answer Set

AbstractLogic 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 (for uniform equivalence, the context ranges over arbitrary sets of facts, rather than program rules). 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 making use of dedicated systems for checking ordinary equivalence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document