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.
Alternatively, existing extensions of ASP can be used to implement some epistemic reasoning tasks, such as reasoning based on brave cautious conclusions. This idea is proposed in @cite_21 to overcome the need for an intermediary step to compute the desired consequences of the ASP program @math , before being fed into @math . Rather, they propose a translation to manifold answer set programs, which exploit the concept of weak constraints @cite_18 to allow for such programs to access all desired consequences of @math within a single answer set. As such, for problems that can be cast into this particular form, only a single ASP program needs to be evaluated and the intermediary step is made obsolete.
@cite_18 @cite_21
1567155055 2049791401 2738428769 2037950528
In answer-set programming (ASP), the main focus usually is on computing answer sets which correspond to solutions to the problem represented by a logic program. Simple reasoning over answer sets is sometimes supported by ASP systems (usually in the form of computing brave or cautious consequences), but slightly more involved reasoning problems require external postprocessing. Generally speaking, it is often desirable to use (a subset of) brave or cautious consequences of a program P 1 as input to another program P 2 in order to provide the desired solutions to the problem to be solved. In practice, the evaluation of the program P 1 currently has to be decoupled from the evaluation of P 2 using an intermediate step which collects the desired consequences of P 1 and provides them as input to P 2 . In this work, we present a novel method for representing such a procedure within a single program, and thus within the realm of ASP itself. Our technique relies on rewriting P 1 into a so-called manifold program , which allows for accessing all desired consequences of P 1 within a single answer set. Then, this manifold program can be evaluated jointly with P 2 avoiding any intermediate computation step. For determining the consequences within the manifold program we use weak constraints , which is strongly motivated by complexity considerations. As an application, we present an encoding for computing the ideal extension of an abstract argumentation framework. We introduce an approach to computing answer sets of logic programs, based on concepts successfully applied in Satisfiability (SAT) checking. The idea is to view inferences in Answer Set Programming (ASP) as unit propagation on nogoods. This provides us with a uniform constraint-based framework capturing diverse inferences encountered in ASP solving. Moreover, our approach allows us to apply advanced solving techniques from the area of SAT. As a result, we present the first full-fledged algorithmic framework for native conflict-driven ASP solving. Our approach is implemented in the ASP solver clasp that has demonstrated its competitiveness and versatility by winning first places at various solver contests. In complex reasoning tasks, as expressible by Answer Set Programming (ASP), problems often permit for multiple solutions. In dynamic environments, where knowledge is continuously changing, the question arises how a given model can be incrementally adjusted relative to new and outdated information. This paper introduces Ticker, a prototypical engine for well-defined logical reasoning over streaming data. Ticker builds on a practical fragment of the recent rule-based language LARS which extends Answer Set Programming for streams by providing flexible expiration control and temporal modalities. We discuss Ticker's reasoning strategies: First, the repeated one-shot solving mode calls Clingo on an ASP encoding. We show how this translation can be incrementally updated when new data is streaming in or time passes by. Based on this, we build on Doyle's classic justification-based truth maintenance system (TMS) to update models of non-stratified programs. Finally, we empirically compare the obtained evaluation mechanisms. This paper is under consideration for acceptance in TPLP. Answer-set programming (ASP) has emerged as a declarative programming paradigm where problems are encoded as logic programs, such that the so-called answer sets of theses programs represent the solutions of the encoded problem. The efficiency of the latest ASP solvers reached a state that makes them applicable for problems of practical importance. Consequently, problems from many different areas, including diagnosis, data integration, and graph theory, have been successfully tackled via ASP. In this work, we present such ASP-encodings for problems associated to abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) and generalisations thereof. Our encodings are formulated as fixed queries, such that the input is the only part depending on the actual AF to process. We illustrate the functioning of this approach, which is underlying a new argumentation system called ASPARTIX in detail and show its adequacy in terms of computational complexity.