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.
Several authors have already proposed alternatives and extensions to the semantics of disjunctive programs. Ordered disjunction @cite_3 falls in the latter category and allows to use the head of the rule to formulate alternative solutions in their preferred order. For example, a rule such as @math represents the knowledge that @math is preferred over @math which is preferred over @math , but that at the very least we want @math to be true. As such it allows for an easy way to express context dependent preferences. The semantics of ordered disjunction allow certain non-minimal models to be answer sets, hence, unlike the work in this paper, it does not adhere to the standard semantics of disjunctive rules in ASP.
@cite_3
1565029141 1984529395 2064864283 2124627636
We extend answer set semantics to deal with inconsistent programs (containing classical negation), by finding a "best" answer set. Within the context of inconsistent programs, it is natural to have a partial order on rules, representing a preference for satisfying certain rules, possibly at the cost of violating less important ones. We show that such a rule order induces a natural order on extended answer sets, the minimal elements of which we call preferred answer sets. We characterize the expressiveness of the resulting semantics and show that it can simulate negation as failure as well as disjunction. We illustrate an application of the approach by considering database repairs, where minimal repairs are shown to correspond to preferred answer sets. 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 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. 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.