Operational Concepts of Nonmonotonic Logics Part 2: Autoepistemic Logic

The subject of nonmonotonic reasoning is reasoning with incompleteinformation. One of the main approaches is autoepistemic logic inwhich reasoning is based on introspection. This paper aims at providing a smooth introduction to this logic,stressing its motivation and basic concepts. The meaning (semantics)of autoepistemic logic is given in terms of so-called expansionswhich are usually defined as solutions of a fixed-point equation. Thepresent paper shows a more understandable, operational method fordetermining expansions. By improving applicability of the basicconcepts to concrete examples, we hope to make a contribution to awider usage of autoepistemic logic in practical applications.     

A Critical Reexamination of Default Logic, Autoepistemic Logic, and Only Knowing

Fifteen years of work on nonmonotonic logic has certainly increased our understanding of the area. However, given a problem in which nonmonotonic reasoning is called for, it is far from clear how one should go about modeling the problem using the various approaches. We explore this issue in the context on two of the best–known approaches, Reiter's default logic and Moore's autoepistemic logic, as well as two related notions of "only knowing," due to Halpern and Moses and to Levesque. In particular, we return to the original technical definitions given in these papers and examine the extent to which they capture the intuitions they were designed to capture.     

Embedding defaults into terminological knowledge representation formalisms

We consider the problem of integrating Reiter's default logic into terminological representation systems. It turns out that such an integration is less straightforward than we expected, considering the fact that the terminological language is a decidable sublanguage of first-order logic. Semantically, one has the unpleasant effect that the consequences of a terminological default theory may be rather unintuitive, and may even vary with the syntactic structure of equivalent concept expressions. This is due to the unsatisfactory treatment of open defaults via Skolemization in Reiter's semantics. On the algorithmic side, we show that this treatment may lead to an undecidable default consequence relation, even though our base language is decidable, and we have only finitely many (open) defaults. Because of these problems, we then consider a restricted semantics for open defaults in our terminological default theories: default rules are applied only to individuals that are explicitly present in the knowledge base. In this semantics it is possible to compute all extensions of a finite terminological default theory, which means that this type of default reasoning is decidable. We describe an algorithm for computing extensions and show how the inference procedures of terminological systems can be modified to give optimal support to this algorithm.This is a revised and extended version of a paper presented at the3rd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, October 1992, Cambridge, MA.     

Reasoning with Sets of Defaults in Default Logic

We present a general approach for representing and reasoning with sets of defaults in default logic, focusing on reasoning about preferences among sets of defaults. First, we consider how to control the application of a set of defaults so that either all apply (if possible) or none do (if not). From this, an approach to dealing with preferences among sets of default rules is developed. We begin with an ordered default theory , consisting of a standard default theory, but with possible preferences on sets of rules. This theory is transformed into a second, standard default theory wherein the preferences are respected. The approach differs from other work, in that we obtain standard default theories and do not rely on prioritized versions of default logic. In practical terms this means we can immediately use existing default logic theorem provers for an implementation. Also, we directly generate just those extensions containing the most preferred applied rules; in contrast, most previous approaches generate all extensions, then select the most preferred. In a major application of the approach, we show how semimonotonic default theories can be encoded so that reasoning can be carried out at the object level. With this, we can reason about default extensions from within the framework of a standard default logic. Hence one can encode notions such as skeptical and credulous conclusions, and can reason about such conclusions within a single extension.     

'Classical' Negation in Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Logic Programming

Gelfond and Lifschitz were the first to point out the need for a symmetric negation in logic programming and they also proposed a specific semantics for such negation for logic programs with the stable semantics, which they called 'classical'. Subsequently, several researchers proposed different, often incompatible, forms of symmetric negation for various semantics of logic programs and deductive databases. To the best of our knowledge, however, no systematic study of symmetric negation in non-monotonic reasoning was ever attempted in the past. In this paper we conduct such a systematic study of symmetric negation. We introduce and discuss two natural, yet different, definitions of symmetric negation: one is called strong negation and the other is called explicit negation. For logic programs with the stable semantics, both symmetric negations coincide with Gelfond–Lifschitz' 'classical negation'. We study properties of strong and explicit negation and their mutual relationship as well as their relationship to default negation 'not', and classical negation '¬'. We show how one can use symmetric negation to provide natural solutions to various knowledge representation problems, such as theory and interpretation update, and belief revision. Rather than to limit our discussion to some narrow class of nonmonotonic theories, such as the class of logic programs with some specific semantics, we conduct our study so that it is applicable to a broad class of non-monotonic formalisms. In order to achieve the desired level of generality, we define the notion of symmetric negation in the knowledge representation framework of AutoEpistemic logic of Beliefs, introduced by Przymusinski.     

Autoepistemic logic programming

An autoepistemic logic programming language is derived from a subset of a three-valued autoepistemic logic, called 3AEL. Autoepistemic programs generalize several ideas underlying logic programming: stable, supported, and well-founded models, Fitting's semantics, Kunen's semantics, and abductive frameworks can all be captured through simple autoepistemic translations; moreover, SLDNF-resolution and a generate-and-test method for stable semantics are generalized to provide sound and complete proof methods for autoepistemic programs. These methods extend existing proof methods for 3AEL. Thus autoepistemic logic programming, besides contributing to the understanding of 3AEL, can be seen as a unifying framework for the theory of logic programs. It should also be regarded as a first step toward a flexible environment where different forms of inference can be formally integrated.This paper is an extended version of [8]. I am grateful to my advisor, Giorgio Levi, to Paolo Mancarella, who read the first version of the paper, and to the anonymous referees, whose comments led to sensible improvements.     

Tableau-based characterization and theorem proving for default logic

In this paper, we present a new method for computing extensions and for deriving formulae from a default theory. It is based on the semantic tableaux method and works for default theories with a finite set of defaults that are formulated over a decidable subset of first-order logic. We prove that all extensions (if any) of a default theory can be produced by constructing the semantic tableau ofone formula built from the general laws and the default consequences. This result allows us to describe an algorithm that provides extensions if there are any, and to decide if there are none. Moreover, the method gives a necessary and sufficient criterion for the existence of extensions of default theories with finitely many defaults provided they are formulated on a decidable subset of FOL.This work was completed while the author was at CNRS, Marseille.     

On the relationship between annotated logic programs and nonmonotonic formalisms

Abstract

In the past we developed a semantics for a restricted annotated logic language for inheritance reasoning. Here we generalize it to annotated Horn logic programs. We first provide a formal account of the language, describe its semantics, and provide an interpreter written in Prolog for it. We then investigate its relationship to Belnap's 4-valued logic, Gelfond and Lifschitz's semantics for logic programs with negation, Brewka's prioritized default logics and other annotated logics due to Kifer et al.     

On nonmonotonic reasoning with the method of sweeping presumptions

Reasoning almost always occurs in the face of incomplete information. Such reasoning is nonmonotonic in the sense that conclusions drawn may later be withdrawn when additional information is obtained. There is an active literature on the problem of modeling such nonmonotonic reasoning, yet no category of method-let alone a single method-has been broadly accepted as the right approach. This paper introduces a new method, called sweeping presumptions, for modeling nonmonotonic reasoning. The main goal of the paper is to provide an example-driven, nontechnical introduction to the method of sweeping presumptions, and thereby to make it plausible that sweeping presumptions can usefully be applied to the problems of nonmonotonic reasoning. The paper discusses a representative sample of examples that have appeared in the literature on nonmonotonic reasoning, and discusses them from the point of view of sweeping presumptions.     

Modal logic for default reasoning

In the paper we introduce a variant of autoepistemic logic that is especially suitable for expressing default reasonings. It is based on the notion of iterative expansion. We show a new way of translating default theories into the language of modal logic under which default extensions correspond exactly to iterative expansions. Iterative expansions have some attractive properties. They are more restrictive than autoepistemic expansions, and, for some classes of theories, than moderately grounded expansions. At the same time iterative expansions avoid several undesirable properties of strongly grounded expansions, for example, they are grounded in the whole set of the agent's initial assumptions and do not depend on their syntactic representation.Iterative expansions are defined syntactically. We define a semantics which leads to yet another notion of expansion — weak iterative expansion — and we show that there is an important class of theories, that we call -programs, for which iterative and weak iterative expansions coincide. Thus, for -programs, iterative expansions can be equivalently defined by semantic means.This work was partially supported by Army Research Office under grant DAAL03-89-K-0124, and by National Science Foundation and the Commonwealth of Kentucky EPSCoR program under grant RII 8610671.     

DEFAULT LOGICS: A UNIFIED VIEW

Default logic has been introduced for handling reasoning with incomplete knowledge. It has been widely studied, and various definitions have been proposed for it. Most of the variants have been defined by means of fixed points of some operator. We propose here another approach, which is based on a study of the way in which general rules with exceptions, used in a default reasoning process, can contradict one another. We then isolate sets of noncontradicting rules, as large as possible in order to exploit as much information as possible, and construct, for each of these sets of rules, the set of conclusions that can be deduced from it. We show that our framework encompasses most of the existing variants of default logic, allowing those variants to be compared from a knowledge representation point of view. Our approach also enables us to provide an operational definition of extensions in some interesting cases. Proof-theoretical and semantical aspects are investigated.     

On computing logic programs

In this paper we present and compare some classical problem-solving methods for computing the stable models of logic programs with negation. Using a graph theoretic representation of logic programs and their stable models, we discuss and compare linear programming, propositional satisfiability, constraint satisfaction, and graph methods.     

A logic programming system for nonmonotonic reasoning

The evolution of logic programming semantics has included the introduction of a new explicit form of negation, beside the older implicit (or default) negation typical of logic programming. The richer language has been shown adequate for a spate of knowledge representation and reasoning forms.The widespread use of such extended programs requires the definition of a correct top-down querying mechanism, much as for Prolog wrt. normal programs. One purpose of this paper is to present and exploit a SLDNF-like derivation procedure, SLX, for programs with explicit negation under well-founded semantics (WFSX) and prove its soundness and completeness. (Its soundness wrt. the answer-sets semantics is also shown.) Our choice ofWFSX as the base semantics is justi-fied by the structural properties it enjoys, which are paramount for top-down query evaluation.Of course, introducing explicit negation requires dealing with contradiction. Consequently, we allow for contradiction to appear, and show moreover how it can be removed by freely changing the truth-values of some subset of a set of predefined revisable literals. To achieve this, we introduce a paraconsistent version ofWFSX, WFSX _p , that allows contradictions and for which our SLX top-down procedure is proven correct as well.This procedure can be used to detect the existence of pairs of complementary literals inWESX _p simply by detecting the violation of integrity rulesf L, -L introduced for eachL in the language of the program. Furthermore, integrity constraints of a more general form are allowed, whose violation can likewise be detected by SLX.Removal of contradiction or integrity violation is accomplished by a variant of the SLX procedure that collects, in a formula, the alternative combinations of revisable literals' truth-values that ensure the said removal. The formulas, after simplification, can then be satisfied by a number of truth-values changes in the revisable, among true, false, and undefined. A notion of minimal change is defined as well that establishes a closeness relation between a program and its revisions. Forthwith, the changes can be enforced by introducing or deleting program rules for the revisable literals.To illustrate the usefulness and originality of our framework, we applied it to obtain a novel logic programming approach, and results, in declarative debugging and model-based diagnosis problems.     

Sequent calculi for skeptical reasoning in predicate default logic and other nonmonotonic logics

Sequent calculi for skeptical consequence in predicate default logic, predicate stable model logic programming, and infinite autoepistemic theories are presented and proved sound and complete. While skeptical consequence is decidable in the finite propositional case of all three formalisms, the move to predicate or infinite theories increases the complexity of skeptical reasoning to being ₁¹-complete. This implies the need for sequent rules with countably many premises, and such rules are employed. AMS subject classification 03B42, 68N17, 68T27This paper grew directly out of the authors dissertation, written under the direction of Anil Nerode.     

Dualities between alternative semantics for logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning

The Gelfond-Lifschitz operator associated with a logic program (and likewise the operator associated with default theories by Reiter) exhibits oscillating behavior. In the case of logic programs, there is always at least one finite, nonempty collection of Herbrand interpretations around which the Gelfond-Lifschitz operator bounces around. The same phenomenon occurs with default logic when Reiter's operator is considered. Based on this, a stable class semantics and extension class semantics has been proposed. The main advantage of this semantics was that it was defined for all logic programs (and default theories), and that this definition was modelled using the standard operators existing in the literature such as Reiter's operator. In this paper our primary aim is to prove that there is a very interestingduality between stable class theory and the well-founded semantics for logic programming. In the stable class semantics, classes that were minimal with respect to Smyth's power-domain ordering were selected. We show that the well-founded semantics precisely corresponds to a class that is minimal w.r.t. Hoare's power domain ordering: the well-known dual of Smyth's ordering. Besides this elegant duality, this immediately suggests how to define a well-founded semantics for default logic in such a way that the dualities that hold for logic programming continue to hold for default theories. We show how the same technique may be applied to strong autoepistemic logic: the logic of strong expansions proposed by Marek and Truszczynski.     

Considerations on default logic: an alternative approach1

In the following paper we analyze Reiter's default logic and suggest modifying the notion of an extension for default theories. This modification leads to two important properties which are not guaranteed in Reiter's formalism: the existence of extensions and semimonotonicity.     

A more expressive formulation of many sorted logic

Many sorted logics can increase deductive efficiency by eliminating useless branches of the search space, but usually this results in reduced expressiveness. The many sorted logic described here has several unusual features which not only increase expressiveness but also can reduce the search space even more than a conventional many sorted logic. The quantifiers are unsorted: the restriction on the range of a variable derives from the argument positions of the nonlogical symbols that it occupies. Polymorphic sort specifications are allowed; thus statements usually requiring several assertions may be compactly expressed by a single assertion. The sort structure may be an arbitrary lattice and the sort of a term can be more general than the sort of the argument position it occupies. It is also shown how it is sometimes possible to use sort information to determine the truth value of a formula without resort normal inference. Inference rules for a resolution based system are discussed; these can be proved to be sound and complete.     

Priorities on defaults with prerequisites,and their application in treating specificity in terminological default logic

In a recent paper we have proposed terminological default logic as a formalism that combines means both for structured representation of classes and objects and for default inheritance of properties. The major drawback that terminological default logic inherits from general default logic is that it does not take precedence of more specific defaults over more general ones into account. This behavior has already been criticized in the general context of default logic, but it is all the more problematic in the terminological case where the emphasis lies on the hierarchical organization of concepts.The present paper addresses the problem of modifying terminological default logic such that more specific defaults are preferred. We assume that the specificity ordering is induced by the hierarchical organization of concepts, which means that default information is not taken into account when computing priorities. It turns out that the existing approaches for expressing priorities between defaults do not seem to be appropriate for defaults with prerequisites. Therefore we shall consider an alternative approach for dealing with prioritization in the framework of Reiter's default logic. The formalism is presented in the general setting of default logic where priorities are given by an arbitrary partial ordering on the defaults. We shall exhibit some interesting properties of the new formalism, compare it with existing approaches, and describe an algorithm for computing extensions. In the terminological case, we thus obtain an automated default reasoning procedure that takes specificity into account.This is an extended version of a paper presented at the13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, August 1993, Chambery, France.