Multiagent Compromises, Joint Fixpoints, and Stable Models

  • Francesco Buccafurri
  • Georg Gottlob
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2407)

Abstract

We assume the requirements or desires of an agent are modeled by a logic program. In a multi-agent setting, a joint decision of the agents, reflecting a compromise of the various requirements, corresponds to a suitable joint model of the respective logic programs. In this paper, an appropriate semantics for selecting joint models representing compromises is proposed: the joint fixpoint semantics. The intended joint models are defined to be the (minimal) joint fixpoints of the agent programs. We study computational properties of this new semantics showing that determining whether two (or more) logic programs have a joint fixpoint is NP complete. This remains true even for entirely positive logic programs. We also study the complexity of skeptical and credulous reasoning under the joint fixpoint semantics. The former is proven to be co-NP complete, while the latter is Σ2P complete. We show how the joint fixpoints of a set of logic programs can be computed as stable sets.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Buccafurri, F., Gottlob, G.: Multiagent Compromises, Joint Fixpoints and Stable Models. Technical Report DBAI-TR-2000-36 (2000) available from the authorsGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Buccafurri, F., Leone, N., Rullo, P.: Stable Models and their Computation for Logic Programming with Inheritance and True Negation. Journal of Logic Programming 27(1), Elsevier Science (1996) 5–43MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Buccafurri, F., Leone, N., Rullo, P.: Semantics and Espressiveness of Disjunctive Ordered Logic. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Journal. J.C. Balzer AC, Science Publisher 25 (1999) 311–337MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: Propositional Circumscription and Extended Closed-World Reasoning are П2 p-Complete. Theoretical Computer Science 114(2) (1993) 231–245MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: On the Computational Cost of Disjunctive Logic Programming: Propositional Case. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 15(3–4) (1995) 289–323MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Mannila, H.: Disjunctive Datalog. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 22(3) (1997) 315–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Eiter, T., Leone, N., Mateis, C., Pfeifer, G., Scarcello, F.: A Deductive System for Non-Monotonic Reasoning. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’ 97). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1265. Springer-Verlag, Dagstuhl, Germany (1997) 364–375Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Cadoli, M.: Default Logic as a Query Language. Transactions on Knowledge Data Engineering 9(3) (1997) 448–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Logic Programming. MIT Press, Cambridge, (1988) 1070–1080Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Gottlob, G., Moerkotte, G., Subrahmanian, V.S.: The PARK Semantics for Active Rules. Proceedings of the International Conference on Extending Database Technology, EDBT’96, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Verlag, (1996) 35–55Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Gottlob, G.: Complexity Results for Nonmonotonic Logics. Journal of Logic and Computation 2(3) (1992) 397–425MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Grosof, B.: Prioritized Conflict Handling for Logic Programs. Proceedings of the International Logic Programming Symposium, ILPS’97, MIT Press, Cambridge, (1997) 197–211.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Kowalski, R., and Sadri, F.: From LP Towards Multi-Agent Systems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25(3–4) (1999) 391–419MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Kolaitis, P.G., Papadimitriou, C.H.: Why not Negation by Fixpoint? Journal of Computer and System Sciences 43(1) (1991) 125–144MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Martelli, M., Mascardi V., Zini, F.: Towards Multi-Agent Software Prototyping. Proceedings of The Third International Conference and Exhibition on The Practical Application of Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agent Technology (PAAM 98), London, UK, (1998) 331–354Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    McCarthy, J.: Circumscription-a Form of Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 13 (1980) 27–39MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Niemelä, I., Simons, P.: Smodels-an Implementation of the Stable Model and Well-founded Semantics for Normal Logic Programs. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’ 97), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1265. Springer-Verlag, Dagstuhl, Germany (1997) 420–429Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Reiter, R.: A Logic for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13 (1980) 81–132MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Saccá, D.: The Expressive Power of Stable Models for Datalog Queries with Negation. Proceedings of the ILPS’93 Workshop on Structural Complexity and Recursion-Theoretic Methods in Logic Programming, Washington D.C., USA (1993) 150–162Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Schlipf, J.S.: The Expressive Powers of Logic Programming Semantics, Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (1990) 196–204Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Schlipf, J.S.: A Survey of Complexity and Undecidability Results in Logic Programming. Proceedings of the ILPS’93 Workshop on Structural Complexity and Recursion-Theoretic Methods in Logic Programming, Washington D.C., USA (1993) 93–102Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Schroeder, M., De Almeida Mora, I., and Pereira L.M.: A Deliberative and Reactive Diagnosis Agent based on Logic Programming. Intelligent Agents III: Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1193, Springer-Verlag, J.P. Muller, M.J. Wooldridge and N. Jennings ed., (1997) 293–307Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Subrahmanian V.S., Bonatti P., Dix, J., and Eiter T., Kraus S., Özcan, F., and Ross, R.: Heterogenous Active Agents. MIT-Press (2000)Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: Formalizing the Cooperative Problem Solving Process. Readings in Agents, M. Huhns and M. Singh ed., Morgan Kaufmann (1997) 430–440Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages: A survey. Intelligent Agents, M. J. Wooldridge and N. R. Jennings ed., Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag 890 (1995) 1–39.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: Intelligent Agents: Theory and Practice. Knowledge Engineering Reviews 10(2) 1995Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Buccafurri
    • 1
  • Georg Gottlob
    • 2
  1. 1.DIMETUniversitá di Reggio CalabriaReggio CalabriaItaly
  2. 2.Institut für InformationssystemeTechnische Universität WienWienAustria

Personalised recommendations