Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a popular framework for modelling combinatorial problems. However, ASP cannot be used easily for reasoning about uncertain information. Possibilistic ASP (PASP) is an extension of ASP that combines possibilistic logic and ASP. In PASP a weight is associated with each rule, whereas this weight is interpreted as the certainty with which the conclusion can be established when the body is known to hold. As such, it allows us to model and reason about uncertain information in an intuitive way. In this paper we present new semantics for PASP in which rules are interpreted as constraints on possibility distributions. Special models of these constraints are then identified as possibilistic answer sets. In addition, since ASP is a special case of PASP in which all the rules are entirely certain, we obtain a new characterization of ASP in terms of constraints on possibility distributions. This allows us to uncover a new form of disjunction, called weak disjunction, that has not been previously considered in the literature. In addition to introducing and motivating the semantics of weak disjunction, we also pinpoint its computational complexity. In particular, while the complexity of most reasoning tasks coincides with standard disjunctive ASP, we find that brave reasoning for programs with weak disjunctions is easier.
Annotated disjunctions are another example of a framework that changes the semantics of disjunctive programs @cite_8 . It is based on the idea that every disjunct in the head of a rule is annotated with a probability. Interestingly, both ordered and annotated disjunction rely on split programs, as found in the possible model semantics @cite_6 . These semantics provide an alternative to the minimal model semantics. The idea is to split a disjunctive program into a number of normal programs, one for each possible choice of disjuncts in the head, of which the minimal Herbrand models are then the possible models of the disjunctive programs. Intuitively this means that a possible model represents a set of atoms for which a possible justification is present in the program. In line with our conclusions for weak disjunction, using the possible model semantics also leads to a lower computational complexity.
@cite_6 @cite_8
2085084839 1514973146 2087432892 2064864283
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 ( P ) the disjunctive (respectively, partial disjunctive) stable semantics ofP coincides with the autoepistemic (respectively, 3-valued autoepistemic) semantics of ( P ) . Current literature offers a number of different approaches to what could generally be called “probabilistic logic programming”. These are usually based on Horn clauses. Here, we introduce a new formalism, Logic Programs with Annotated Disjunctions, based on disjunctive logic programs. In this formalism, each of the disjuncts in the head of a clause is annotated with a probability. Viewing such a set of probabilistic disjunctive clauses as a probabilistic disjunction of normal logic programs allows us to derive a possible world semantics, more precisely, a probability distribution on the set of all Herbrand interpretations. We demonstrate the strength of this formalism by some examples and compare it to related work. This paper addresses complexity issues for important problems arising with disjunctive logic programming. In particular, the complexity of deciding whether a disjunctive logic program is consistent is investigated for a variety of well-known semantics, as well as the complexity of deciding whether a propositional formula is satisfied by all models according to a given semantics. We concentrate on finite propositional disjunctive programs with as well as without integrity constraints, i.e., clauses with empty heads; the problems are located in appropriate slots of the polynomial hierarchy. In particular, we show that the consistency check is Σ 2 p -complete for the disjunctive stable model semantics (in the total as well as partial version), the iterated closed world assumption, and the perfect model semantics, and we show that the inference problem for these semantics is Π 2 p -complete; analogous results are derived for the answer sets semantics of extended disjunctive logic programs. Besides, we generalize previously derived complexity results for the generalized closed world assumption and other more sophisticated variants of the closed world assumption. Furthermore, we use the close ties between the logic programming framework and other nonmonotonic formalisms to provide new complexity results for disjunctive default theories and disjunctive autoepistemic literal theories. The addition of aggregates has been one of the most relevant enhancements to the language of answer set programming (ASP). They strengthen the modelling power of ASP in terms of natural and concise problem representations. Previous semantic definitions typically agree in the case of non-recursive aggregates, but the picture is less clear for aggregates involved in recursion. Some proposals explicitly avoid recursive aggregates, most others differ, and many of them do not satisfy desirable criteria, such as minimality or coincidence with answer sets in the aggregate-free case. In this paper we define a semantics for programs with arbitrary aggregates (including monotone, antimonotone, and nonmonotone aggregates) in the full ASP language allowing also for disjunction in the head (disjunctive logic programming - DLP). This semantics is a genuine generalization of the answer set semantics for DLP, it is defined by a natural variant of the Gelfond-Lifschitz transformation, and treats aggregate and non-aggregate literals in a uniform way. This novel transformation is interesting per se also in the aggregate-free case, since it is simpler than the original transformation and does not need to differentiate between positive and negative literals. We prove that our semantics guarantees the minimality (and therefore the incomparability) of answer sets, and we demonstrate that it coincides with the standard answer set semantics on aggregate-free programs. Moreover, we carry out an in-depth study of the computational complexity of the language. The analysis pays particular attention to the impact of syntactical restrictions on programs in the form of limited use of aggregates, disjunction, and negation. While the addition of aggregates does not affect the complexity of the full DLP language, it turns out that their presence does increase the complexity of normal (i.e., non-disjunctive) ASP programs up to the second level of the polynomial hierarchy. However, we show that there are large classes of aggregates the addition of which does not cause any complexity gap even for normal programs, including the fragment allowing for arbitrary monotone, arbitrary antimonotone, and stratified (i.e., non-recursive) nonmonotone aggregates. The analysis provides some useful indications on the possibility to implement aggregates in existing reasoning engines.