Gelfond and Zhang recently proposed a new stable model semantics based on Vicious Circle Principle in order to improve the interpretation of logic programs with aggregates. The paper focuses on this proposal, and analyzes the complexity of both coherence testing and cautious reasoning under the new semantics. Some surprising results highlight similarities and differences versus mainstream stable model semantics for aggregates. Moreover, the paper reports on the design of compilation techniques for implementing the new semantics on top of existing ASP solvers, which eventually lead to realize a prototype system that allows for experimenting with Gelfond-Zhang's aggregates. To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP), Proceedings of ICLP 2015.
The challenge of extending stable model semantics with aggregate constructs has been investigated quite intensively in the previous decade. Among the many proposals, F-stable model semantics @cite_10 @cite_6 is of particular interest as many ASP solvers are currently based on this semantics @cite_4 @cite_28 . Actually, the definition provided in is slightly different than those in @cite_10 @cite_6 . In particular, the language considered in @cite_10 has a broader syntax allowing for arbitrary nesting of propositional formulas. The language considered in @cite_6 , instead, does not allow explicitly the use of double negation, which however can be simulated by means of auxiliary atoms. For example, in @cite_6 a rule @math must be modeled by using a fresh atom @math and the following subprogram: @math @math . On the other hand, negated aggregates are permitted in @cite_6 , while they are forbidden in this paper. Actually, programs with negated aggregates are those for which @cite_10 and @cite_6 disagree. As a final remark, the reduct of @cite_6 does not remove negated literals from bodies, which however are necessarily true in all counter-models because double negation is not allowed in the syntax considered by @cite_6 .
@cite_28 @cite_4 @cite_10 @cite_6
2064864283 2063061546 176609766 2010968193
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. We propose a semantics for aggregates in deductive databases based on a notion of minimality. Unlike some previous approaches, we form a minimal model of a program component including aggregate operators, rather than insisting that the aggregate apply to atoms that have been fully determined or that aggregate functions are rewritten in terms of negation. In order to guarantee the existence of such a minimal model we need to insist that the domains over which we are aggregating are complete lattices and that the program is in a sense mono- tonic. Our approach generalizes previous approaches based on the well-founded semantics and various forms of stratification. We are also able to handle a large variety of monotonic (or pseudo-monotonic) aggregate functions. Horn clause logic programming can be extended to include abduction with integrity constraints. In the resulting extension of logic programming, negation by failure can be simulated by making negative conditions abducible and by imposing appropriate denials and disjunctions as integrity constraints. This gives an alternative semantics for negation by failure, which generalises the stable model semantics of negation by failure. The abductive extension of logic programming extends negation by failure in three ways: (1) computation can be perfonned in alternative minimal models, (2) positive as well as negative conditions can be made abducible, and (3) other integrity constraints can also be accommodated. * This paper was written while the first author was at Imperial College. 235 Introduction The tenn "abduction" was introduced by the philosopher Charles Peirce [1931] to refer to a particular kind of hypothetical reasoning. In the simplest case, it has the fonn: From A and A fB infer B as a possible "explanation" of A. Abduction has been given prominence in Charniak and McDennot's [1985] "Introduction to Artificial Intelligence", where it has been applied to expert systems and story comprehension. Independently, several authors have developed deductive techniques to drive the generation of abductive hypotheses. Cox and Pietrzykowski [1986] construct hypotheses from the "dead ends" of linear resolution proofs. Finger and Genesereth [1985] generate "deductive solutions to design problems" using the "residue" left behind in resolution proofs. Poole, Goebel and Aleliunas [1987] also use linear resolution to generate hypotheses. All impose the restriction that hypotheses should be consistent with the "knowledge base". Abduction is a fonn of non-monotonic reasoning, because hypotheses which are consistent with one state of a knowledge base may become inconSistent when new knowledge is added. Poole [1988] argues that abduction is preferable to noh-monotonic logics for default reasoning. In this view, defaults are hypotheses fonnulated within classical logic rather than conclusions derived withln some fonn of non-monotonic logic. The similarity between abduction and default reasoning was also pointed out in [Kowalski, 1979]. In this paper we show how abduction can be integrated with logic programming, and we concentrate on the use of abduction to generalise negation by failure. Conditional Answers Compared with Abduction In the simplest case, a logic program consists of a set of Horn Clauses, which are used backward to_reduce goals to sub goals. The initial goal is solved when there are no subgollls left; Let P be an arbitrary theory and let X be any given logic. Let M be a set of atoms. We say that M is a X-stable model of P if M is a classical model of P and P∪¬M proves in logic X all atoms in M, this is denoted by P∪¬M ⊩xM. We prove that being an X-stable model is an invariant property for disjunctive programmes under a large class of logics. Two kinds of logics are mainly considered: paraconsistent logics and normal modal logics. For modal logics we use a translation proposed by Gelfond that replaces ¬a with ¬□a. As a consequence we prove that several semantics (recently introduced) for non-monotonic reasoning are equivalent for disjunctive programmes. In addition, we show that such semantics can be characterized by a fixed-point operator in terms of classical logic. We also present a simple translation of a disjunctive programme D into a normal programme N, such that the PStable model semantics of N corresponds to the stable semantics of D over the common language. We present the formal proof of this statement.