Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-65dc7cd545-rzhp5 Total loading time: 0.198 Render date: 2021-07-25T23:17:18.242Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Characterization of logic program revision as an extension of propositional revision*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2015

NICOLAS SCHWIND
Affiliation:
Transdisciplinary Research Integration Center, 2-1-2 Hitotsubashi, Chiyoda-ku, 101-8430 Tokyo, Japan (e-mail: schwind@nii.ac.jp)
KATSUMI INOUE
Affiliation:
National Institute of Informatics, 2-1-2 Hitotsubashi, Chiyoda-ku, 101-8430 Tokyo, Japan (e-mail: inoue@nii.ac.jp)
Corresponding

Abstract

We address the problem of belief revision of logic programs (LPs), i.e., how to incorporate to a LP P a new LP Q. Based on the structure of SE interpretations, Delgrande et al. (2008. Proc. of the 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'08), 411–421; 2013b. Proc. of the 12th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'13), 264–276) adapted the well-known AGM framework (Alchourrón et al. 1985. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 2, 510–530) to LP revision. They identified the rational behavior of LP revision and introduced some specific operators. In this paper, a constructive characterization of all rational LP revision operators is given in terms of orderings over propositional interpretations with some further conditions specific to SE interpretations. It provides an intuitive, complete procedure for the construction of all rational LP revision operators and makes easier the comprehension of their semantic and computational properties. We give a particular consideration to LPs of very general form, i.e., the generalized logic programs (GLPs). We show that every rational GLP revision operator is derived from a propositional revision operator satisfying the original AGM postulates. Interestingly, the further conditions specific to GLP revision are independent from the propositional revision operator on which a GLP revision operator is based. Taking advantage of our characterization result, we embed the GLP revision operators into structures of Boolean lattices, that allow us to bring to light some potential weaknesses in the adapted AGM postulates. To illustrate our claim, we introduce and characterize axiomatically two specific classes of (rational) GLP revision operators which arguably have a drastic behavior. We additionally consider two more restricted forms of LPs, i.e., the disjunctive logic programs (DLPs) and the normal logic programs (NLPs) and adapt our characterization result to disjunctive logic program and normal logic program revision operators.

Type
Regular Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

*

This is a revised and full version (including proofs of propositions given in the online appendix of the paper) of Schwind and Inoue (2013).

References

Alchourrón, C. E., Gärdenfors, P. and Makinson, D. 1985. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 2, 510530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alferes, J. J., Leite, J. A., Pereira, L. M., Przymusinska, H. and Przymusinski, T. C. 2000. Dynamic updates of non-monotonic knowledge bases. Journal of Logic Programming 45, 1–3, 4370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabalar, P. and Ferraris, P. 2007. Propositional theories are strongly equivalent to logic programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 7, 6, 745759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalal, M. 1988. Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision: Preliminary report. In Proc. of the 7th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'88), AAAI Press/The MIT Press, Saint Paul, MN, USA, 475479.Google Scholar
Delgrande, J. P., Peppas, P. and Woltran, S. 2013a. AGM-style belief revision of logic programs under answer set semantics. In Proc. of the 12th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'13), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8148. Springer, Corunna, Spain, 264276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delgrande, J. P., Schaub, T. and Tompits, H. 2007. A preference-based framework for updating logic programs. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'07), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4483. Springer, Tempe, AZ, USA, 7183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delgrande, J. P., Schaub, T., Tompits, H. and Woltran, S. 2008. Belief revision of logic programs under answer set semantics. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'08), AAAI Press, Sydney, Australia, 411421.Google Scholar
Delgrande, J. P., Schaub, T., Tompits, H. and Woltran, S. 2009. Merging logic programs under answer set semantics. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP'09), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5649. Springer, Pasadena, CA, USA, 160174.Google Scholar
Delgrande, J. P., Schaub, T., Tompits, H. and Woltran, S. 2013b. A model-theoretic approach to belief change in answer set programming. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 14, 2, 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eiter, T., Fink, M., Sabbatini, G. and Tompits, H. 2002. On properties of update sequences based on causal rejection. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 2, 6, 711767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eiter, T., Tompits, H. and Woltran, S. 2005. On solution correspondences in answer set programming. In Proc. of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'05), Professional Book Center, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 97102.Google Scholar
Inoue, K. and Sakama, C. 1998. Negation as failure in the head. Journal of Logic Programming 35, 1, 3978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katsuno, H. and Mendelzon, A. O. 1989. A unified view of propositional knowledge base updates. In Proc. of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'89), Morgan Kaufmann, Detroit, MI, USA, 14131419.Google Scholar
Katsuno, H. and Mendelzon, A. O. 1991. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'91), Morgan Kaufmann, Cambridge, MA, USA, 387394.Google Scholar
Katsuno, H. and Mendelzon, A. O. 1992. Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artificial Intelligence 52, 3, 263294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konieczny, S. and Pino Pérez, R. 2002. Merging information under constraints: A logical framework. Journal of Logic and Computation 12, 5, 773808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberatore, P. and Schaerf, M. 2001. Belief revision and update: Complexity of model checking. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 62, 1, 4372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lifschitz, V., Pearce, D. and Valverde, A. 2001. Strongly equivalent logic programs. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2, 4, 526541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papadimitriou, C. M. 1994. Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Sakama, C. and Inoue, K. 2003. An abductive framework for computing knowledge base updates. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3, 6, 671713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satoh, K. 1988. Nonmonotonic reasoning by minimal belief revision. In Proceedings of FGCS'88, OHMSHA Ltd. Tokyo and Springer-Verlag, Tokyo, Japan, 455462.Google Scholar
Schwind, N. and Inoue, K. 2013. Characterization theorems for revision of logic programs. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'13), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8148. Springer, Corunna, Spain, 485498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slota, M. and Leite, J. 2010. On semantic update operators for answer-set programs. In Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'10), vol. 215. IOS Press, Lisbon, Portugal, 957962.Google Scholar
Slota, M. and Leite, J. 2012. Robust equivalence models for semantic updates of answer-set programs. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'12), AAAI Press, Rome, Italy, 156168.Google Scholar
Slota, M. and Leite, J. 2014. The rise and fall of semantic rule updates based on SE-models. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 14, 6, 869907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, H. 2003. Strong equivalence made easy: Nested expressions and weight constraints. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3, 4–5, 609622.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y. 2006. Logic program-based updates. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 7, 3, 421472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y. and Foo, N. Y. 1997. Towards generalized rule-based updates. In Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'97), Morgan Kaufmann, Nagoya, Japan, 8288.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Schwind and Inoue supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Schwind and Inoue supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 229 KB
3
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Characterization of logic program revision as an extension of propositional revision*
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Characterization of logic program revision as an extension of propositional revision*
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Characterization of logic program revision as an extension of propositional revision*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *