A stable model semantics for behavioral inheritance in deductive object oriented languages

This paper studies the stable model semantics of logic programs with (abstract) constraint atoms and their properties. We introduce a succinct abstract representation of these constraint atoms in which a constraint atom is represented compactly. We show two applications. First, under this representation of constraint atoms, we generalize the Gelfond–Lifschitz transformation and apply it to define stable models (also called answer sets) for logic programs with arbitrary constraint atoms. The resulting semantics turns out to coincide with the one defined by Son et al. (2007), which is based on a fixpoint approach. One advantage of our approach is that it can be applied, in a natural way, to define stable models for disjunctive logic programs with constraint atoms, which may appear in the disjunctive head as well as in the body of a rule. As a result, our approach to the stable model semantics for logic programs with constraint atoms generalizes a number of previous approaches. Second, we show that our abstract representation of constraint atoms provides a means to characterize dependencies of atoms in a program with constraint atoms, so that some standard characterizations and properties relying on these dependencies in the past for logic programs with ordinary atoms can be extended to logic programs with constraint atoms.

We present many-valued disjunctive logic programs in which classical disjunctive logic program clauses are extended by a truth value that respects the material implication. Interestingly, these many-valued disjunctive logic programs have both a probabilistic semantics in probabilities over possible worlds and a truth-functional semantics. We then define minimal, perfect, and stable models and show that they have the same properties like their classical counterparts. In particular, perfect and stable models are always minimal models. Under local stratification, the perfect model semantics coincides with the stable model semantics. Finally, we show that some special cases of propositional many-valued disjunctive logic programming under minimal, perfect, and stable model semantics have the same complexity like their classical counterparts.

M. Bezem defined an extensional semantics for positive higher-order logic programs. Recently, it was demonstrated by Rondogiannis and Symeonidou that Bezem's technique can be extended to higher-order logic programs with negation, retaining its extensional properties, provided that it is interpreted under a logic with an infinite number of truth values. Rondogiannis and Symeonidou also demonstrated that Bezem's technique, when extended under the stable model semantics, does not in general lead to extensional stable models. In this paper, we consider the problem of extending Bezem's technique under the well-founded semantics. We demonstrate that the well-founded extensionfailsto retain extensionality in the general case. On the positive side, we demonstrate that for stratified higher-order logic programs, extensionality is indeed achieved. We analyze the reasons of the failure of extensionality in the general case, arguing that a three-valued setting cannot distinguish between certain predicates that appear to have a different behaviour inside a program context, but which happen to be identical as three-valued relations.

Hybrid MKNF knowledge bases are one of the most prominent tightly integrated combinations of open-world ontology languages with closed-world (nonmonotonic) rule paradigms. Based on the logic of minimal knowledge and negation as failure (MKNF), the definition of Hybrid MKNF is parametric on the description logic (DL) underlying the ontology language, in the sense that nonmonotonic rules can extend any decidable DL language. Two related semantics have been defined for Hybrid MKNF: one that is based on the Stable Model Semantics for logic programs and one on the Well-Founded Semantics (WFS). Under WFS, the definition of Hybrid MKNF relies on a bottom-up computation that has polynomial data complexity whenever the DL language is tractable. Here we define a general query-driven procedure for Hybrid MKNF that is sound with respect to the stable model-based semantics, and sound and complete with respect to its WFS variant. This procedure is able to answer a slightly restricted form of conjunctive queries, and is based on tabled rule evaluation extended with an external oracle that captures reasoning within the ontology. Such an (abstract) oracle receives as input a query along with knowledge already derived, and replies with a (possibly empty) set of atoms, defined in the rules, whose truth would suffice to prove the initial query. With appropriate assumptions on the complexity of the abstract oracle, the general procedure maintains the data complexity of the WFS for Hybrid MKNF knowledge bases. To illustrate this approach, we provide a concrete oracle for EL + , a fragment of the lightweight DL EL ++ . Such an oracle has practical use, as EL ++ is the language underlying OWL 2 EL, which is part of the W3C recommendations for the Semantic Web, and is tractable for reasoning tasks such as subsumption. We show that query-driven Hybrid MKNF preserves polynomial data complexity when using the EL + oracle and WFS.

We show that stable models of logic programs may be viewed as minimal models of programs that satisfy certain additional constraints. To do so, we transform the normal programs into disjunctive logic programs and sets of integrity constraints. We show that the stable models of the normal program coincide with the minimal models of the disjunctive program thatsatisfy the integrity constraints. As a consequence, the stable model semantics can be characterized using theextended generalized closed world assumption for disjunctive logic programs. Using this result, we develop a bottomup algorithm for function-free logic programs to find all stable models of a normal program by computing the perfect models of a disjunctive stratified logic program and checking them for consistency with the integrity constraints. The integrity constraints provide a rationale as to why some normal logic programs have no stable models.

We propose C4, a four-valued semantics for normal, logic programs. Using this semantics, we define two types of entailment: strong and weak. We show that a normal, logic program strongly entails a sentence under C4 if, and only if, the program entails that sentence under the well founded semantics and it weakly entails a sentence if, and only if, the program entails that sentence under the two-valued stable model semantics in case the program has any stable models. We argue that this shows that the difference between the well founded semantics and the stable model semantics can be characterized in terms of their attitude to what we call contested information. We use this insight to propose a general theory of contested reasoning.

Although negative conclusions are presented implicitly in Normal Hybrid Probabilistic Programs (NHPP) [26] through the closed world assumption, representing and reasoning with explicit negation is needed in NHPP to allow the ability to reason with incomplete knowledge. In this paper we extend the language of NHPP to explicitly encode classical negation in addition to non-monotonic negation. The semantics of the extended language is based on the answer set semantics of traditional logic programming [9]. We show that the proposed semantics is a natural extension to the answer set semantics of traditional logic programming [9]. In addition, the proposed semantics is reduced to stable probabilistic model semantics of NHPP [26]. The importance of that is computational methods developed for NHPP can be applied to the proposed language. Furthermore, we show that some commonsense probabilistic knowledge can be easily represented in the proposed language.KeywordsLogic ProgramLogic ProgrammingClassical NegationIncomplete KnowledgeProbability IntervalThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This paper extends fuzzy logic programs [12, 24] to allow the explicit representation of classical negation as well as non-monotonic negation, by introducing the notion of extended fuzzy logic programs. We present the fuzzy answer set semantics for the extended fuzzy logic programs, which is based on the classical answer set semantics of classical extended logic programs [7]. We show that the proposed semantics is a natural extension to the classical answer set semantics of classical extended logic programs [7]. Furthermore, we define fixpoint semantics for extended fuzzy logic programs with and without non-monotonic negation, and study their relationship to the fuzzy answer set semantics. In addition, we show that the fuzzy answer set semantics is reduced to the stable fuzzy model semantics for normal fuzzy logic programs introduced in [42]. The importance of that is computational methods developed for normal fuzzy logic programs can be applied to the extended fuzzy logic programs. Moreover, we show that extended fuzzy logic programs can be intuitively used for representing and reasoning about actions in fuzzy environment.

On the equivalence of semantics for normal logic programs

Logic programming has developed as a rich field, built over a logical substratum whose main constituent is a nonclassical form of negation, sometimes coexisting with classical negation. The field has seen the advent of a number of alternative semantics, with Kripke–Kleene semantics, the well-founded semantics, the stable model semantics, and the answer-set semantics standing out as the most successful. We show that all aforementioned semantics are particular cases of a generic semantics, in a framework where classical negation is the unique form of negation and where the literals in the bodies of the rules can be ‘marked’ to indicate that they can be the targets of hypotheses. A particular semantics then amounts to choosing a particular marking scheme and choosing a particular set of hypotheses. When a literal belongs to the chosen set of hypotheses, all marked occurrences of that literal in the body of a rule are assumed to be true, whereas the occurrences of that literal that have not been marked in the body of the rule are to be derived in order to contribute to the firing of the rule. Hence the notion of hypothetical reasoning that is presented in this framework is not based on making global assumptions, but more subtly on making local, contextual assumptions, taking effect as indicated by the chosen marking scheme on the basis of the chosen set of hypotheses. Our approach offers a unified view on the various semantics proposed in logic programming, classical in that only classical negation is used, and links the semantics of logic programs to mechanisms that endow rule-based systems with the power to harness hypothetical reasoning.

We establish a novel relation between delete-free planning, an important task for the AI Planning community also known as relaxed planning, and logic programming. We show that given a planning problem, all subsets of actions that could be ordered to produce relaxed plans for the problem can be bijectively captured with stable models of a logic program describing the corresponding relaxed planning problem. We also consider the supported model semantics of logic programs, and introduce one causal and one diagnostic encoding of the relaxed planning problem as logic programs, both capturing relaxed plans with their supported models. Our experimental results show that these new encodings can provide major performance gain when computing optimal relaxed plans.

We introduce the stable model semantics fordisjunctive logic programs and deductive databases, which generalizes the stable model semantics, defined earlier for normal (i.e., non-disjunctive) programs. Depending on whether only total (2-valued) or all partial (3-valued) models are used we obtain thedisjunctive stable semantics or thepartial disjunctive stable semantics, respectively. The proposed semantics are shown to have the following properties: • For normal programs, the disjunctive (respectively, partial disjunctive) stable semantics coincides with thestable (respectively,partial stable) semantics. • For normal programs, the partial disjunctive stable semantics also coincides with thewell-founded semantics. • For locally stratified disjunctive programs both (total and partial) disjunctive stable semantics coincide with theperfect model semantics. • The partial disjunctive stable semantics can be generalized to the class ofall disjunctive logic programs. • Both (total and partial) disjunctive stable semantics can be naturally extended to a broader class of disjunctive programs that permit the use ofclassical negation. • After translation of the programP into a suitable autoepistemic theory\( \hat P \) the disjunctive (respectively, partial disjunctive) stable semantics ofP coincides with the autoepistemic (respectively, 3-valued autoepistemic) semantics of\( \hat P \) .

Over recent years, various semantics have been proposed for dealing with updates in the setting of logic programs. The availability of different semantics naturally raises the question of which are most adequate to model updates. A systematic approach to face this question is to identify general principles against which such semantics could be evaluated. In this paper we motivate and introduce a new such principle – the refined extension principle – which is complied with by the stable model semantics for (single) logic programs. It turns out that none of the existing semantics for logic program updates, even though based on stable models, complies with this principle. For this reason, we define a refinement of the dynamic stable model semantics for Dynamic Logic Programs that complies with the principle.

We present an extension of Logic Programming (under stable models semantics) that, not only allows concluding whether a true atom is a cause of another atom, but alsoderiving new conclusionsfrom these causal-effect relations. This is expressive enough to capture informal rules like “if some agent's actionshave beennecessaryto cause an eventEthen conclude atomcaused(,E),” something that, to the best of our knowledge, had not been formalised in the literature. To this aim, we start from a first attempt that proposed extending the syntax of logic programs with so-calledcausal literals. These causal literals are expressions that can be used in rule bodies and allow inspecting the derivation of some atomAin the program with respect to some query function ψ. Depending on how these query functions are defined, we can model different types of causal relations such as sufficient, necessary or contributory causes, for instance. The initial approach was specifically focused on monotonic query functions. This was enough to cover sufficient cause-effect relations but, unfortunately, necessary and contributory are essentiallynon-monotonic. In this work, we define a semantics for non-monotonic causal literals showing that, not only extends the stable model semantics for normal logic programs, but also preserves many of its usual desirable properties for the extended syntax. Using this new semantics, we provide precise definitions ofnecessaryandcontributorycausal relations and briefly explain their behaviour on a pair of typical examples from the Knowledge Representation literature.

It is well known that, under certain conditions, it is possible to split logic programs under stable model semantics, i.e. to divide such a program into a number of different levels, such that the models of the entire program can be constructed by incrementally constructing models for each level. Similar results exist for other non-monotonic formalisms, such as auto-epistemic logic and default logic. In this work, we present a general, algebraic splitting theory for programs/theories under a fixpoint semantics. Together with the framework of approximation theory, a general fixpoint theory for arbitrary operators, this gives us a uniform and powerful way of deriving splitting results for each logic with a fixpoint semantics. We demonstrate the usefulness of these results, by generalizing Lifschitz and Turner's splitting theorem to other semantics for (non-disjunctive) logic programs.