Abstract Managed multi-context systems (mMCSs) allow for the integration of heterogeneous knowledge sources in a modular and very general way. They were, however, mainly designed for static scenarios and are therefore not well-suited for dynamic environments in which continuous reasoning over such heterogeneous knowledge with constantly arriving streams of data is necessary. In this paper, we introduce reactive multi-context systems (rMCSs), a framework for reactive reasoning in the presence of heterogeneous knowledge sources and data streams. We show that rMCSs are indeed well-suited for this purpose by illustrating how several typical problems arising in the context of stream reasoning can be handled using them, by showing how inconsistencies possibly occurring in the integration of multiple knowledge sources can be handled, and by arguing that the potential non-determinism of rMCSs can be avoided if needed using an alternative, more skeptical well-founded semantics instead with beneficial computational properties. We also investigate the computational complexity of various reasoning problems related to rMCSs. Finally, we discuss related work, and show that rMCSs do not only generalize mMCSs to dynamic settings, but also capture extend relevant approaches w.r.t. dynamics in knowledge representation and stream reasoning.
The idea of EVOLP is that programs can update their own rules thus describing their possible self-evolution. Each self-evolution can be represented by a sequence of programs, each program corresponding to a state, and these sequences of programs can be treated as in Dynamic Logic Programs (DLPs) @cite_16 . Dynamic logic programs are sequences @math of generalized logic programs, whose semantics is based on the causal rejection principle. The idea is that the most recent rules are put in force, (where @math is to be seen as the most recent set of rules), and the previous rules are valid as far as possible, i.e., they are only kept if they do not conflict with more recent rules. Here, these intuitions about DLPs are sufficient, and we point to @cite_16 for more details.
@cite_16
1518772666 2174235632 2105631606 2086092403 2100983017 1551453953 2106500031 2109910161 2170232725 1508718221 2152131859 1484110122 1984529395 2050890691 1576921484 2169808787 2004414305 183822441 1963591676 2124627636
Among others, (1998) presented an approach for updating logic programs with sets of rules based on dynamic logic programs. We syntactically redefine dynamic logic programs and investigate their semantical properties, looking at them from perspectives such as a belief revision and abstract consequence relation view. Since the approach does not respect minimality of change, we refine its stable model semantics and present minimal stable models and strict stable models. We also compare the update approach to related work, and find that is equivalent to a class of inheritance programs independently defined by (1999). We introduce a methodology and framework for expressing general preference information in logic programming under the answer set semantics. An ordered logic program is an extended logic program in which rules are named by unique terms, and in which preferences among rules are given by a set of atoms of form s p t where s and t are names. An ordered logic program is transformed into a second, regular, extended logic program wherein the preferences are respected, in that the answer sets obtained in the transformed program correspond with the preferred answer sets of the original program. Our approach allows the specification of dynamic orderings, in which preferences can appear arbitrarily within a program. Static orderings (in which preferences are external to a logic program) are a trivial restriction of the general dynamic case. First, we develop a specific approach to reasoning with preferences, wherein the preference ordering specifies the order in which rules are to be applied. We then demonstrate the wide range of applicability of our framework by showing how other approaches, among them that of Brewka and Eiter, can be captured within our framework. Since the result of each of these transformations is an extended logic program, we can make use of existing implementations, such as dlv and smodels. To this end, we have developed a publicly available compiler as a front-end for these programming systems. In this paper we investigate updates of knowledge bases represented by logic programs. In order to represent negative information, we use generalized logic programs which allow default negation not only in rule bodies but also in their heads. We start by introducing the notion of an update P U of one logic program P by another logic program U. Subsequently, we provide a precise semantic characterization of P U , and study some basic properties of program updates. In particular, we show that our update programs generalize the notion of interpretation update. We then extend this notion to compositional sequences of logic programs updates P1 P2 ; defining a dynamic program update, and thereby introducing the paradigm of dynamic logic programming. This paradigm significantly facilitates modularization of logic programming, and thus modularization of non-monotonic reasoning as a whole. Specifically, suppose that we are given a set of logic program modules, each describing a diAerent state of our knowledge of the world. DiAerent states may represent diAerent time points or diAerent sets of priorities or perhaps even diAerent viewpoints. Consequently, program modules may contain mutually contradictory as well as overlapping information. The role of the dynamic program update is to employ the mutual relationships existing between diAerent modules to precisely determine, at any given module composition stage, the declarative as well as the procedural semantics of the combined program resulting from the modules. ” 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. This paper presents an inference algorithm that can discover temporal logic properties of a system from data. Our algorithm operates on finite time system trajectories that are labeled according to whether or not they demonstrate some desirable system properties (e.g. "the car successfully stops before hitting an obstruction"). A temporal logic formula that can discriminate between the desirable behaviors and the undesirable ones is constructed. The formulae also indicate possible causes for each set of behaviors (e.g. "If the speed of the car is greater than 15 m s within 0.5s of brake application, the obstruction will be struck") which can be used to tune designs or to perform on-line monitoring to ensure the desired behavior. We introduce reactive parameter signal temporal logic (rPSTL), a fragment of parameter signal temporal logic (PSTL) that is expressive enough to capture causal, spatial, and temporal relationships in data. We define a partial order over the set of rPSTL formulae that is based on language inclusion. This order enables a directed search over this set, i.e. given a candidate rPSTL formula that does not adequately match the observed data, we can automatically construct a formula that will fit the data at least as well. Two case studies, one involving a cattle herding scenario and one involving a stochastic hybrid gene circuit model, are presented to illustrate our approach. We propose a combination of logic programming under the answer set semantics with the description logics SHIF(D) and SHOIN(D), which underly the Web ontology languages OWL Lite and OWL DL, respectively. To this end, we introduce description logic programs (or dl-programs), which consist of a description logic knowledge base L and a finite set P of description logic rules (or dl-rules). Such rules are similar to usual rules in nonmonotonic logic programs, but they may also contain queries to L, possibly under default negation, in their bodies. They allow for building rules on top of ontologies but also, to a limited extent, building ontologies on top of rules. We define a suite of semantics for various classes of dl-programs, which conservatively extend the standard semantics of the respective classes and coincide with it in absence of a description logic knowledge base. More concretely, we generalize positive, stratified, and arbitrary normal logic programs to dl-programs, and define a Herbrand model semantics for them. We show that they have similar properties as ordinary logic programs, and also provide fixpoint characterizations in terms of (iterated) consequence operators. For arbitrary dl-programs, we define answer sets by generalizing Gelfond and Lifschitz's notion of a transform, leading to a strong and a weak answer set semantics, which are based on reductions to the semantics of positive dl-programs and ordinary positive logic programs, respectively. We also show how the weak answer sets can be computed utilizing answer sets of ordinary normal logic programs. Furthermore, we show how some advanced reasoning tasks for the Semantic Web, including different forms of closed-world reasoning and default reasoning, as well as DL-safe rules, can be realized on top of dl-programs. Finally, we give a precise picture of the computational complexity of dl-programs, and we describe efficient algorithms and a prototype implementation of dl-programs which is available on the Web. This paper introduces techniques for updating knowledge bases represented in extended logic programs. Three different types of updates, view updates, theory updates, and inconsistency removal, are considered. We formulate these updates through abduction, and provide methods for computing them with update programs. An update program is an extended logic program which specifies changes on abductive hypotheses, then updates are computed by the U-minimal answer sets of an update program. The proposed technique provides a uniform framework for these different types of updates, and each update is computed using existing procedures of logic programming. Disjunctive logic programming (DLP) is a very expressive formalism. It allows for expressing every property of finite structures that is decidable in the complexity class ΣP2(=NPNP). Despite this high expressiveness, there are some simple properties, often arising in real-world applications, which cannot be encoded in a simple and natural manner. Especially properties that require the use of arithmetic operators (like sum, times, or count) on a set or multiset of elements, which satisfy some conditions, cannot be naturally expressed in classic DLP. To overcome this deficiency, we extend DLP by aggregate functions in a conservative way. In particular, we avoid the introduction of constructs with disputed semantics, by requiring aggregates to be stratified. We formally define the semantics of the extended language (called ), and illustrate how it can be profitably used for representing knowledge. Furthermore, we analyze the computational complexity of , showing that the addition of aggregates does not bring a higher cost in that respect. Finally, we provide an implementation of in DLVa state-of-the-art DLP systemand report on experiments which confirm the usefulness of the proposed extension also for the efficiency of computation. Learning, planning, and representing knowledge at multiple levels of temporal ab- straction are key, longstanding challenges for AI. In this paper we consider how these challenges can be addressed within the mathematical framework of reinforce- ment learning and Markov decision processes (MDPs). We extend the usual notion of action in this framework to include options—closed-loop policies for taking ac- tion over a period of time. Examples of options include picking up an object, going to lunch, and traveling to a distant city, as well as primitive actions such as mus- cle twitches and joint torques. Overall, we show that options enable temporally abstract knowledge and action to be included in the reinforcement learning frame- work in a natural and general way. In particular, we show that options may be used interchangeably with primitive actions in planning methods such as dynamic pro- gramming and in learning methods such as Q-learning. Formally, a set of options defined over an MDP constitutes a semi-Markov decision process (SMDP), and the theory of SMDPs provides the foundation for the theory of options. However, the most interesting issues concern the interplay between the underlying MDP and the SMDP and are thus beyond SMDP theory. We present results for three such cases: 1) we show that the results of planning with options can be used during execution to interrupt options and thereby perform even better than planned, 2) we introduce new intra-option methods that are able to learn about an option from fragments of its execution, and 3) we propose a notion of subgoal that can be used to improve the options themselves. All of these results have precursors in the existing literature; the contribution of this paper is to establish them in a simpler and more general setting with fewer changes to the existing reinforcement learning framework. In particular, we show that these results can be obtained without committing to (or ruling out) any particular approach to state abstraction, hierarchy, function approximation, or the macro-utility problem. This paper relates the Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) framework and its semantics SEMDeLP to classical logic programming frameworks. In DeLP, we distinguish between two different sorts of rules: strict and defeasible rules. Negative literals (∼A) in these rules are considered to represent classical negation. In contrast to this, in normal logic programming (NLP), there is only one kind of rules, but the meaning of negative literals (not A) is different: they represent a kind of negation as failure, and thereby introduce defeasibility. Various semantics have been defined for NLP, notably the well-founded semantics (WFS) (van , Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, 1988, pp. 221-230; J. ACM 38 (3) (1991) 620) and the stable semantics Stable (Gelfond and Lifschitz, Fifth Conference on Logic Programming, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988, pp. 1070-1080; Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Logical Programming, Jerusalem, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991, pp. 579-597).In this paper we consider the transformation properties for NLP introduced by Brass and Dix (J. Logic Programming 38(3) (1999) 167) and suitably adjusted for the DeLP framework. We show which transformation properties are satisfied, thereby identifying aspects in which NLP and DeLP differ. We contend that the transformation rules presented in this paper can help to gain a better understanding of the relationship of DeLP semantics with respect to more traditional logic programming approaches. As a byproduct, we obtain the result that DeLP is a proper extension of NLP. Disjunctive Logic Programming (DLP) is a very expressive formalism: it allows to express every property of finite structures that is decidable in the complexity class ΣP2 (NPNP). Despite the high expressiveness of DLP, there are some simple properties, often arising in real-world applications, which cannot be encoded in a simple and natural manner. Among these, properties requiring to apply some arithmetic operators (like sum, times, count) on a set of elements satisfying some conditions, cannot be naturally expressed in DLP. To overcome this deficiency, in this paper we extend DLP by aggregate functions. We formally define the semantics of the new language, named DLPA. We show the usefulness of the new constructs on relevant knowledge-based problems. We analyze the computational complexity of DLPA, showing that the addition of aggregates does not bring a higher cost in that respect. We provide an implementation of the DLPA language in DLV- the state-of-the-art DLP system - and report on experiments which confirm the usefulness of the proposed extension also for the efficiency of the computation. Logic programming with the stable model semantics is put forward as a novel constraint programming paradigm. This paradigm is interesting because it bring advantages of logic programming based knowledge representation techniques to constraint programming and because implementation methods for the stable model semantics for ground (variabledfree) programs have advanced significantly in recent years. For a program with variables these methods need a grounding procedure for generating a variabledfree program. As a practical approach to handling the grounding problem a subclass of logic programs, domain restricted programs, is proposed. This subclass enables efficient grounding procedures and serves as a basis for integrating builtdin predicates and functions often needed in applications. It is shown that the novel paradigm embeds classical logical satisfiability and standard (finite domain) constraint satisfaction problems but seems to provide a more expressive framework from a knowledge representation point of view. The first steps towards a programming methodology for the new paradigm are taken by presenting solutions to standard constraint satisfaction problems, combinatorial graph problems and planning problems. An efficient implementation of the paradigm based on domain restricted programs has been developed. This is an extension of a previous implementation of the stable model semantics, the Smodels system, and is publicly available. It contains, e.g., builtdin integer arithmetic integrated to stable model computation. The implementation is described briefly and some test results illustrating the current level of performance are reported. Disjunctive Logic Programming (DLP) under the answer set semantics, often referred to as Answer Set Programming (ASP), is a powerful formalism for knowledge representation and reasoning (KRR). The latest years witness an increasing effort for embedding functions in the context of ASP. Nevertheless, at present no ASP system allows for a reasonably unrestricted use of function terms. Functions are either required not to be recursive or subject to severe syntactic limitations, if allowed at all in ASP systems. In this work we formally define the new class of finitely-ground programs, allowing for a powerful (possibly recursive) use of function terms in the full ASP language with disjunction and negation. We demonstrate that finitely-ground programs have nice computational properties: (i) both brave and cautious reasoning are decidable, and (ii) answer sets of finitely-ground programs are computable. Moreover, the language is highly expressive, as any computable function can be encoded by a finitely-ground program. Due to the high expressiveness, membership in the class of finitely-ground program is clearly not decidable (we prove that it is semi-decidable). We single out also a subset of finitely-ground programs, called finite-domain programs, which are effectively recognizable, while keeping computability of both reasoning and answer set computation. We implement all results in DLP, further extending the language in order to support list and set terms, along with a rich library of built-in functions for their manipulation. The resulting ASP system is very powerful: any computable function can be encoded in a rich and fully declarative KRR language, ensuring termination on every finitely-ground program. In addition, termination is "a priori" guaranteed if the user asks for the finite-domain check. Logic programs with ordered disjunction (LPODs) combine ideas underlying Qualitative Choice Logic (Brewka, Benferhat, & Le Berre 2002) and answer set programming. Logic programming under answer set semantics is extended with a new connective called ordered disjunction. The new connective allows us to represent alternative, ranked options for problem solutions in the heads of rules: A × B intuitively means: if possible A, but if A is not possible then at least B. The semantics of logic programs with ordered disjunction is based on a preference relation on answer sets. LPODs are useful for applications in design and configuration and can serve as a basis for qualitative decision making. The answer set semantics presented by [27] has been widely used to define so called FLP answer sets for different types of logic programs. However, it was recently observed that when being extended from normal to more general classes of logic programs, this approach may produce answer sets with circular justifications that are caused by self-supporting loops. The main reason for this behavior is that the FLP answer set semantics is not fully constructive by a bottom up construction of answer sets. In this paper, we overcome this problem by enhancing the FLP answer set semantics with a level mapping formalism such that every answer set I can be built by fixpoint iteration of a one-step provability operator (more precisely, an extended van Emden-Kowalski operator for the FLP reduct fΠI). This is inspired by the fact that under the standard answer set semantics, each answer set I of a normal logic program Π is obtainable by fixpoint iteration of the standard van Emden-Kowalski one-step provability operator for the Gelfond-Lifschitz reduct ΠI, which induces a level mapping. The enhanced FLP answer sets, which we call well-justified FLP answer sets, are thanks to the level mapping free of circular justifications. As a general framework, the well-justified FLP answer set semantics applies to logic programs with first-order formulas, logic programs with aggregates, description logic programs, hex-programs etc., provided that the rule satisfaction is properly extended to such general logic programs. We study in depth the computational complexity of FLP and well-justified FLP answer sets for general classes of logic programs. Our results show that the level mapping does not increase the worst-case complexity of FLP answer sets. Furthermore, we describe an implementation of the well-justified FLP answer set semantics, and report about an experimental evaluation, which indicates a potential for performance improvements by the level mapping in practice. We propose a new family of probabilistic description logics (DLs) that, in contrast to most existing approaches, are derived in a principled way from Halpern's probabilistic first-order logic. The resulting probabilistic DLs have a two-dimensional semantics similar to certain popular combinations of DLs with temporal logic and are well-suited for capturing subjective probabilities. Our main contribution is a detailed study of the complexity of reasoning in the new family of probabilistic DLs, showing that it ranges from PTIME for weak variants based on the lightweight DL EL to undecidable for some expressive variants based on the DL ALC. Answer set programming (ASP) with disjunction offers a powerful tool for declaratively representing and solving hard problems. Many NP-complete problems can be encoded in the answer set semantics of logic programs in a very concise and intuitive way, where the encoding reflects the typical “guess and check” nature of NP problems: The property is encoded in a way such that polynomial size certificates for it correspond to stable models of a program. However, the problem-solving capacity of full disjunctive logic programs (DLPs) is beyond NP, and captures a class of problems at the second level of the polynomial hierarchy. While these problems also have a clear “guess and check” structure, finding an encoding in a DLP reflecting this structure may sometimes be a non-obvious task, in particular if the “check” itself is a co-NP-complete problem; usually, such problems are solved by interleaving separate guess and check programs, where the check is expressed by inconsistency of the check program. In this paper, we present general transformations of head-cycle free (extended) disjunctive logic programs into stratified and positive (extended) disjunctive logic programs based on meta-interpretation techniques. The answer sets of the original and the transformed program are in simple correspondence, and, moreover, inconsistency of the original program is indicated by a designated answer set of the transformed program. Our transformations facilitate the integration of separate “guess” and “check” programs, which are often easy to obtain, automatically into a single disjunctive logic program. Our results complement recent results on meta-interpretation in ASP, and extend methods and techniques for a declarative “guess and check” problem solving paradigm through ASP. We propose a new translation from normal logic programs with constraints under the answer set semantics to propositional logic. Given a normal logic program, we show that by adding, for each loop in the program, a corresponding loop formula to the program's completion, we obtain a one-to-one correspondence between the answer sets of the program and the models of the resulting propositional theory. In the worst case, there may be an exponential number of loops in a logic program. To address this problem, we propose an approach that adds loop formulas a few at a time, selectively. Based on these results, we implement a system called ASSAT(X), depending on the SAT solver X used, for computing one answer set of a normal logic program with constraints. We test the system on a variety of benchmarks including the graph coloring, the blocks world planning, and Hamiltonian Circuit domains. Our experimental results show that in these domains, for the task of generating one answer set of a normal logic program, our system has a clear edge over the state-of-art answer set programming systems Smodels and DLV. A fundamental problem in Description Logics (DLs) is satisfiability, the problem of checking if a given DL terminology T remains sufficiently unconstrained to enable at least one instance of a given DL concept C to exist. It has been known for some time that lazy unfolding is an important optimization technique in model building algorithms for satisfiability [2]. It is also imperative for large terminologies to be manipulated by an absorption generation process to maximize the benefits of lazy unfolding in such algorithms, thereby reducing the combinatorial effects of disjunction in underlying chase procedures [5]. In this paper, we propose a generalization of the absorption theory and algorithms developed by Horrocks and Tobies [6, 7]. The generalization, called binary absorption, makes it possible for lazy unfolding to be used for parts of terminologies not handled by current absorption algorithms and theory. The basic idea of binary absorption is to avoid the need to internalize (at least some of the) terminological axioms of the form The paper proposes a new knowledge representation language, called DLP<, which extends disjunctive logic programming (with strong negation) by inheritance. The addition of inheritance enhances the knowledge modeling features of the language providing a natural representation of default reasoning with exceptions. A declarative model-theoretic semantics of DLP< is provided, which is shown to generalize the Answer Set Semantics of disjunctive logic programs. The knowledge modeling features of the language are illustrated by encoding classical nonmonotonic problems in DLP<. The complexity of DLP< is analyzed, proving that inheritance does not cause any computational overhead, as reasoning in DLP< has exactly the same complexity as reasoning in disjunctive logic programming. This is confirmed by the existence of an efficient translation from DLP< to plain disjunctive logic programming. Using this translation, an advanced KR system supporting the DLP< language has been implemented on top of the DLV system and has subsequently been integrated into DLV. Abstract In this paper, we address the issue of how Gelfond and Lifschitz's answer set semantics for extended logic programs can be suitably modified to handle prioritized programs. In such programs an ordering on the program rules is used to express preferences. We show how this ordering can be used to define preferred answer sets and thus to increase the set of consequences of a program. We define a strong and a weak notion of preferred answer sets. The first takes preferences more seriously, while the second guarantees the existence of a preferred answer set for programs possessing at least one answer set. Adding priorities to rules is not new, and has been explored in different contexts. However, we show that many approaches to priority handling, most of which are inherited from closely related formalisms like default logic, are not suitable and fail on intuitive examples. Our approach, which obeys abstract, general principles that any approach to prioritized knowledge representation should satisfy, handles them in the expected way. Moreover, we investigate the complexity of our approach. It appears that strong preference on answer sets does not add on the complexity of the principal reasoning tasks, and weak preference leads only to a mild increase in complexity.