This paper introduces an abductive framework for updating knowledge bases represented by extended disjunctive programs. We first provide a simple transformation from abductive programs to update programs which are logic programs specifying changes on abductive hypotheses. Then, extended abduction, which was introduced by the same authors as a generalization of traditional abduction, is computed by the answer sets of update programs. Next, different types of updates, view updates and theory updates are characterized by abductive programs and computed by update programs. The task of consistency restoration is also realized as special cases of these updates. Each update problem is comparatively assessed from the computational complexity viewpoint. The result of this paper provides a uniform framework for different types of knowledge base updates, and each update is computed using existing procedures of logic programming.
Update programs are simple and applied to a broader class of abductive programs, and extended abduction is realized by any procedure for computing answer sets of EDPs. In implementation, some restrictions on programs such as function-free and range-restricted conditions would be necessary. Moreover, since extended abduction includes normal abduction as a special case, update programs are also used for computing normal abduction in EDPs. To compute extended abduction, @cite_2 introduced a transaction program which is a set of production rules to compute (anti-)explanations by fixpoint construction. The procedure works correctly in acyclic covered NLPs. Inoue introduces a simple program transformation from extended abduction to normal abduction in general EDPs. Using the transformation, extended abduction is executed via normal abduction.
@cite_2
1801368039 1551453953 86882622 176609766
To explain observations from nonmonotonic background theories, one often needs removal of some hypotheses as well as addition of other hypotheses. Moreover, some observations should not be explained, while some are to be explained. In order to formalize these situations, extended abduction was introduced by Inoue and Sakama (1995) to generalize traditional abduction in the sense that it can compute negative explanations by removing hypotheses and antidexplanations to unexplain negative observations. In this paper, we propose a computational mechanism for extended abduction. When a background theory is written in a normal logic program, we introduce its transaction program for computing extended abduction. A transaction program is a set of nonddeterministic production rules that declaratively specify addition and deletion of abductive hypotheses. Abductive explanations are then computed by the fixpoint of a transaction program using a bottomdup model generation procedure. The correctness of the proposed procedure is shown for the class of acyclic covered abductive logic programs. In the context of deductive databases, a transaction program provides a declarative specification of database update. This paper introduces techniques for updating knowledge bases represented in extended logic programs. Three different types of updates, view updates, theory updates, and inconsistency removal, are considered. We formulate these updates through abduction, and provide methods for computing them with update programs. An update program is an extended logic program which specifies changes on abductive hypotheses, then updates are computed by the U-minimal answer sets of an update program. The proposed technique provides a uniform framework for these different types of updates, and each update is computed using existing procedures of logic programming. This paper proposes a method of nonmonotonic theory change. We first introduce a new form of abduction that can account for observations in nonmonotonic situation. Then we provide a framework of autoepistemic update, which describes nonmonotonic theory change through the extended abductive framework. The proposed update semantics is fairly general and provides a unified framework for various update semantics such as first-order update, view update of databases, and contradiction removal of nonmonotonic theories. 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;