In [Hitzler and Wendt 2002, 2005], a new methodology has been proposed which allows to derive uniform characterizations of different declarative semantics for logic programs with negation. One result from this work is that the well-founded semantics can formally be understood as a stratified version of the Fitting (or Kripke-Kleene) semantics. The constructions leading to this result, however, show a certain asymmetry which is not readily understood. We will study this situation here with the result that we will obtain a coherent picture of relations between different semantics for normal logic programs.
Loyer, Spyratos and Stamate, in @cite_11 , presented a parametrized approach to different semantics. It allows to substitute the preference for falsehood by preference for truth in the stable and well-founded semantics, but uses entirely different means than presented here. Its purpose is also different --- while we focus on the strenghtening of the mathematical foundations for the field, the work in @cite_11 is motivated by the need to deal with open vs. closed world assumption in some application settings. The exact relationship between their approach and ours remains to be worked out.
@cite_11
1983914828 2156621282 35390552 2748296057
In this paper we recast the classical Darondeau---Degano's causal semantics of concurrency in a coalgebraic setting, where we derive a compact model. Our construction is inspired by the one of Montanari and Pistore yielding causal automata, but we show that it is instance of an existing categorical framework for modeling the semantics of nominal calculi, whose relevance is further demonstrated. The key idea is to represent events as names, and the occurrence of a new event as name generation. We model causal semantics as a coalgebra over a presheaf, along the lines of the Fiore---Turi approach to the semantics of nominal calculi. More specifically, we take a suitable category of finite posets, representing causal relations over events, and we equip it with an endofunctor that allocates new events and relates them to their causes. Presheaves over this category express the relationship between processes and causal relations among the processes' events. We use the allocation operator to define a category of well-behaved coalgebras: it models the occurrence of a new event along each transition. Then we turn the causal transition relation into a coalgebra in this category, where labels only exhibit maximal events with respect to the source states' poset, and we show that its bisimilarity is essentially Darondeau---Degano's strong causal bisimilarity. This coalgebra is still infinite-state, but we exploit the equivalence between coalgebras over a class of presheaves and History Dependent automata to derive a compact representation, where states only retain the poset of the most recent events for each atomic subprocess, and are isomorphic up to order-preserving permutations. Remarkably, this reduction of states is automatically performed along the equivalence. We present an approach to learning a model-theoretic semantics for natural language tied to Freebase. Crucially, our approach uses an open predicate vocabulary, enabling it to produce denotations for phrases such as "Republican front-runner from Texas" whose semantics cannot be represented using the Freebase schema. Our approach directly converts a sentence's syntactic CCG parse into a logical form containing predicates derived from the words in the sentence, assigning each word a consistent semantics across sentences. This logical form is evaluated against a learned probabilistic database that defines a distribution over denotations for each textual predicate. A training phase produces this probabilistic database using a corpus of entity-linked text and probabilistic matrix factorization with a novel ranking objective function. We evaluate our approach on a compositional question answering task where it outperforms several competitive baselines. We also compare our approach against manually annotated Freebase queries, finding that our open predicate vocabulary enables us to answer many questions that Freebase cannot. This paper investigates, several methods for coping with inconsistency caused by multiple source information by introducing suitable consequence relations capable of inferring non trivial conclusions from an inconsistent stratified knowledge base. Some of these methods presuppose a revision step, namely a selection of one or several consistent subsets of formulas, and then classical inference is used for inferring from these subsets. Two alternative methods that do not require any revision step are studied: inference based on arguments and a new approach called safely supported inference, where inconsistency is kept local. These two last methods look suitable when the inconsistency is due to the presence of several sources of information. The paper offers a comparative study of the various inference modes under inconsistency. Numerous contributions have been made for some years to allow users to exchange formal proofs between different provers. The main propositions consist in ad hoc pointwise translations, e.g. between HOL Light and Isabelle in the Flyspeck project or uses of more or less complete certificates. We propose in this paper a methodology to combine proofs coming from different theorem provers. This methodology relies on the Dedukti logical framework as a common formalism in which proofs can be translated and combined. To relate the independently developed mathematical libraries used in proof assistants, we rely on the structuring features offered by FoCaLiZe, in particular parameterized modules and inheritance to build a formal library of transfer theorems called MathTransfer. We finally illustrate this methodology on the Sieve of Eratosthenes, which we prove correct using HOL and Coq in combination.