A logical framework for querying and repairing inconsistent databases

In this paper, we address the problem of managing inconsistent databases, i.e., databases violating integrity constraints. We propose a general logic framework for computing repairs and consistent answers over inconsistent databases. A repair for a possibly inconsistent database is a minimal set of insert and delete operations which makes the database consistent, whereas a consistent answer is a set of tuples derived from the database, satisfying all integrity constraints. In our framework, different types of rules defining general integrity constraints, repair constraints (i.e., rules defining conditions on the insertion or deletion of atoms), and prioritized constraints (i.e., rules defining priorities among updates and repairs) are considered. We propose a technique based on the rewriting of constraints into (prioritized) extended disjunctive rules with two different forms of negation (negation as failure and classical negation). The disjunctive program can be used for two different purposes: to compute "repairs" for the database and produce consistent answers, i.e., a maximal set of atoms which do not violate the constraints. We show that our technique is sound, complete (each preferred stable model defines a repair and each repair is derived from a preferred stable model), and more general than techniques previously proposed.     

Disjunctive LP+integrity constraints= stable model semantics

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.     

Semantic forgetting in answer set programming

The notion of forgetting, also known as variable elimination, has been investigated extensively in the context of classical logic, but less so in (nonmonotonic) logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning. The few approaches that exist are based on syntactic modifications of a program at hand. In this paper, we establish a declarative theory of forgetting for disjunctive logic programs under answer set semantics that is fully based on semantic grounds. The suitability of this theory is justified by a number of desirable properties. In particular, one of our results shows that our notion of forgetting can be entirely captured by classical forgetting. We present several algorithms for computing a representation of the result of forgetting, and provide a characterization of the computational complexity of reasoning from a logic program under forgetting. As applications of our approach, we present a fairly general framework for resolving conflicts in inconsistent knowledge bases that are represented by disjunctive logic programs, and we show how the semantics of inheritance logic programs and update logic programs from the literature can be characterized through forgetting. The basic idea of the conflict resolution framework is to weaken the preferences of each agent by forgetting certain knowledge that causes inconsistency. In particular, we show how to use the notion of forgetting to provide an elegant solution for preference elicitation in disjunctive logic programming.     

Nonmonotonic reasoning as prioritized argumentation

This paper proposes a formalism for nonmonotonic reasoning based on prioritized argumentation. We argue that nonmonotonic reasoning in general can be viewed as selecting monotonic inferences by a simple notion of priority among inference rules. More importantly, these types of constrained inferences can be specified in a knowledge representation language where a theory consists of a collection of rules of first order formulas and a priority among these rules. We recast default reasoning as a form of prioritized argumentation and illustrate how the parameterized formulation of priority may be used to allow various extensions and modifications to default reasoning. We also show that it is possible, but more difficult, to express prioritized argumentation by default logic: Even some particular forms of prioritized argumentation cannot be represented modularly by defaults under the same language     

Autoepistemic logics as a unifying framework for the semantics of logic programs

In this paper, it is shown that a three-valued autoepistemic logic provides an elegant unifying framework for some of the major semantics of normal and disjunctive logic programs and logic programs with classical negation, namely, the stable semantics, the well-founded semantics, supported models, Fitting's semantics, Kunen's semantics, the stationary semantics, and answer sets. For the first time, so many semantics are embedded into one logic. The framework extends previous results—by Gelfond, Lifschitz, Marek, Subrahmanian, and Truszczynski —on the relationships between logic programming and Moore's autoepistemic logic. The framework suggests several new semantics for negation-as-failure. In particular, we will introduce the epistemic semantics for disjunctive logic programs. In order to motivate the epistemic semantics, an interesting class of applications called ignorance tests will be formalized; it will be proved that ignorance tests can be defined by means of the epistemic semantics, but not by means of the old semantics for disjunctive programs. The autoepistemic framework provides a formal foundation for an environment that integrates different forms of negation. The role of classical negation and various forms of negation-by-failure in logic programming will be briefly discussed.     

Clausal Logic and Logic Programming in Algebraic Domains

We introduce a domain-theoretic foundation for disjunctive logic programming. This foundation is built on clausal logic, a representation of the Smyth powerdomain of any coherent algebraic dcpo. We establish the completeness of a resolution rule for inference in such a clausal logic; we introduce a natural declarative semantics and a fixed-point semantics for disjunctive logic programs, and prove their equivalence; finally, we apply our results to give both a syntax and semantics for default logic in any coherent algebraic dcpo.     

Hypothetical reasoning in logic programs

In order to express incomplete knowledge, extended logic programs have been proposed as logic programs with classical negation along with negation as failure. This paper discusses ways to deal with a broad class of common sense knowledge by using extended logic programs. For this purpose, we present a uniform approach for dealing with both incomplete and contradictory programs, as a simple framework of hypothetical reasoning in which some rules are dealt with as candidate hypotheses that can be used to augment the background theory. This theory formation framework can be used for default reasoning, contradiction removals, the closed world assumption, and abduction. We also show a translation of the theory formation framework to an extended logic program whose answer sets correspond to the consistent belief sets of augmented theories.     

A generalization of the Lin-Zhao theorem

The theorem on loop formulas due to Fangzhen Lin and Yuting Zhao shows how to turn a logic program into a propositional formula that describes the program’s stable models. In this paper we simplify and generalize the statement of this theorem. The simplification is achieved by modifying the definition of a loop in such a way that a program is turned into the corresponding propositional formula by adding loop formulas directly to the conjunction of its rules, without the intermediate step of forming the program’s completion. The generalization makes the idea of a loop formula applicable to stable models in the sense of a very general definition that covers disjunctive programs, programs with nested expressions, and more.     

Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases

An important limitation of traditional logic programming as a knowledge representation tool, in comparison with classical logic, is that logic programming does not allow us to deal directly with incomplete information. In order to overcome this limitation, we extend the class of general logic programs by including classical negation, in addition to negation-as-failure. The semantics of such extended programs is based on the method of stable models. The concept of a disjunctive database can be extended in a similar way. We show that some facts of commonsense knowledge can be represented by logic programs and disjunctive databases more easily when classical negation is available. Computationally, classical negation can be eliminated from extended programs by a simple preprocessor. Extended programs are identical to a special case of default theories in the sense of Reiter.     

Semantic Forcing in Disjunctive Logic Programs

We propose a semantics for disjunctive logic programs, based on the single notion of forcing. We show that the semantics properly extends, in a natural way, previous approaches. A fixpoint characterization is also provided. We also take a closer look at the relationship between disjunctive logic programs and disjunctive-free logic programs. We present certain criteria under which a disjunctive program is semantically equivalent with its disjunctive-free (shifted) version.     

Propositional semantics for disjunctive logic programs

In this paper we study the properties of the class of head-cycle-free extended disjunctive logic programs (HEDLPs), which includes, as a special case, all nondisjunctive extended logic programs. We show that any propositional HEDLP can be mapped in polynomial time into a propositional theory such that each model of the latter corresponds to an answer set, as defined by stable model semantics, of the former. Using this mapping, we show that many queries over HEDLPs can be determined by solving propositional satisfiability problems. Our mapping has several important implications: It establishes the NP-completeness of this class of disjunctive logic programs; it allows existing algorithms and tractable subsets for the satisfiability problem to be used in logic programming; it facilitates evaluation of the expressive power of disjunctive logic programs; and it leads to the discovery of useful similarities between stable model semantics and Clark's predicate completion.     

Possibilistic Merging and Distance-Based Fusion of Propositional Information

The problem of merging multiple sources information is central in many information processing areas such as databases integrating problems, multiple criteria decision making, expert opinion pooling, etc. Recently, several approaches have been proposed to merge propositional bases, or sets of (non-prioritized) goals. These approaches are in general semantically defined. Like in belief revision, they use implicit priorities, generally based on Dalal's distance, for merging the propositional bases and return a new propositional base as a result. An immediate consequence of the generation of a propositional base is the impossibility of decomposing and iterating the fusion process in a coherent way with respect to priorities since the underlying ordering is lost. This paper presents a general approach for fusing prioritized bases, both semantically and syntactically, when priorities are represented in the possibilistic logic framework. Different classes of merging operators are considered depending on whether the sources are consistent, conflicting, redundant or independent. We show that the approaches which have been recently proposed for merging propositional bases can be embedded in this setting. The result is then a prioritized base, and hence the process can be coherently decomposed and iterated. Moreover, this encoding provides a syntactic counterpart for the fusion of propositional bases.     

A semantical framework for hybrid knowledge bases

In the ongoing discussion about combining rules and ontologies on the Semantic Web a recurring issue is how to combine first-order classical logic with nonmonotonic rule languages. Whereas several modular approaches to define a combined semantics for such hybrid knowledge bases focus mainly on decidability issues, we tackle the matter from a more general point of view. In this paper, we show how Quantified Equilibrium Logic (QEL) can function as a unified framework which embraces classical logic as well as disjunctive logic programs under the (open) answer set semantics. In the proposed variant of QEL, we relax the unique names assumption, which was present in earlier versions of QEL. Moreover, we show that this framework elegantly captures the existing modular approaches for hybrid knowledge bases in a unified way.     

The Least Fixpoint Transformation for Disjunctive Logic Programs

The paradigm of disjunctive logic programming(DLP)enhances greatly the expressive power of normal logic programming(NLP)and many(declarative)semantics have been defined for DLP to cope with various problems of knowledge representation in artificial intelligence.However,the expressive ability of the semantics and the soundness of program transformations for DLP have been rarely explored.This paper defines an immediate consequence operatro T^GP for each disjunctive program and shows that T^GP has the least and computable fixpoint Lft(P),Lft is,in fact,a program transformation for DLP,which transforms all disjunctive programs into negative programs.It is shown that Lft preserves many key semantics,including the disjunctive stable models,well-founded model,disjunctive argunent semantics DAS,three-valued models,ect.Thic means that every disjunctive program P has a unique canonical form Lft(P)with respect to these semantics.As a result,the work in this paper provides a unifying framework for studying the expressive ability of various semantics for DLP On the other hand,the computing of the above semantics for negative programs is ust a trivial task,therefore,Lft(P)is also an optimization method for DLP.Another application of Lft is to derive some interesting semantic results for DLP.     

Negation as failure for disjunctive logic programming

We generalize the Negation-as-Failure procedure for disjunctive logic programming. Then we compare our method with related methods in the literature. We also propose a new completion theory for disjunctive logic programs which allows some program clauses to have inclusive meaning and the others exclusive meaning.     

Extremal problems in logic programming and stable model computation

We study the following problem: given a class of logic programs ¢, determine the maximum number of stable models of a program from ©. We establish the maximum for the class of all logic programs with at most n clauses, and for the class of all logic programs of size at most n. We also characterize the programs for which the maxima are attained. We obtained similar results for the class of all disjunctive logic programs with at most n clauses, each of length at most m, and for the class of all disjunctive logic programs of size at most n. Our results on logic programs have direct implication for the design of algorithms to compute stable models. Several such algorithms, similar in spirit to the Davis-Putnam procedure, are described in the paper. Our results imply that there is an algorithm that finds all stable models of a program with n clauses after considering the search space of size O(3^n/3) in the worst case. Our results also provide some insights into the question of representability of families of sets as families of stable models of logic programs.     

Paraconsistent Declarative Semantics for Extended Logic Programs

We introduce a fixpoint semantics for logic programs with two kinds of negation: an explicit negation and a negation-by-failure. The programs may also be prioritized, that is, their clauses may be arranged in a partial order that reflects preferences among the corresponding rules. This yields a robust framework for representing knowledge in logic programs with a considerable expressive power. The declarative semantics for such programs is particularly suitable for reasoning with uncertainty, in the sense that it pinpoints the incomplete and inconsistent parts of the data, and regards the remaining information as classically consistent. As such, this semantics allows to draw conclusions in a non-trivial way, even in cases that the logic programs under consideration are not consistent. Finally, we show that this formalism may be regarded as a simple and flexible process for belief revision.     

Solving logic program conflict through strong and weak forgettings

We consider how to forget a set of atoms in a logic program. Intuitively, when a set of atoms is forgotten from a logic program, all atoms in the set should be eliminated from this program in some way, and other atoms related to them in the program might also be affected. We define notions of strong and weak forgettings in logic programs to capture such intuition, reveal their close connections to the notion of forgetting in classical propositional theories, and provide a precise semantic characterization for them. Based on these notions, we then develop a general framework for conflict solving in logic programs. We investigate various semantic properties and features in relation to strong and weak forgettings and conflict solving in the proposed framework. We argue that many important conflict solving problems can be represented within this framework. In particular, we show that all major logic program update approaches can be transformed into our framework, under which each approach becomes a specific conflict solving case with certain constraints. We also study essential computational properties of strong and weak forgettings and conflict solving in the framework.