Revision by expansion in logic programs

  • Cees Witteveen
  • Catholijn Jonker
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 810)


We discuss the general problem of revising a contradictory non-monotonic theory and we show that sometimes expanding the theory is more appropriate than contracting it in order to remove the contradiction. We apply this idea of theory-expansion to logic programs with negation and constraints.

Using the well-founded (wf-) model semantics for logic programs as our starting point we show that this model may be contradictory due to a clash between the assumption made in the wf-model to consider unfounded atoms to be false and the repercussions constraints can have on this assumption.

Then we show that the contradiction can be removed by adding rules to unfounded atoms in the program. We propose to use the noncontradictory wf-model of such an expansion as the semantics of the original program.

We develop a formal framework for program expansion, studying properties as completeness, minimality and computational complexity of expansions.

We think that program expansion is the best framework to study procedurally defined revision processes as proposed in truth maintenance and logic programming such as dependency-directed backtracking and the recently proposed contradiction removal semantics.

Using the framework of program expansions we are able to determine the complexity profiles of these approaches as well as significant generalizations of both of them.


Logic Program Logic Programming Expansion Method Expansion Function Program Expansion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    C. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors and D. Makinson, On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50, 510–530, 1985.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Dix, Classifying Semantics of Logic Programs. In: A. Nerode et al. (eds), Proceedings LPNMR'91, MIT Press, 1991, pp. 166–180.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Doyle, A Truth Maintenance System, Artificial Intelligence 12, 1979.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Gärdenfors, Knowledge in Flux, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. R. Garey, D. S. Johnson, Computers and Intractability, Freeman, New York, 1979.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Gottlob, C. G. Fermüller, Removing redundancy from a clause, Artificial Intelligence, 61, (1993) 263–289Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. M. Jonker, Cautious Backtracking and Well-Founded Semantics in Truth Maintenance. Technical Report RUU-CS-91-26, Dept. of Computer Science, Utrecht University, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. M. Jonker, Analysis of Dependency-Directed Backtracking: leading to Informative Backtracking. Technical Report to appear, Dept. of Philosophy and Dept. of Computer Science, Utrecht University, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morris, P., Stable Closures, Defeasible Logic and Contradiction Tolerant Reasoning, Proceedings of the 7th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1988.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. M. Pereira, J. J. Alferes and J. N. Aparicio, Contradiction Removal within well-founded semantics. In: A. Nerode, W. Marek and V. S. Subrahmanian, (eds.), First International Workshop on Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning, MIT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. M. Pereira, J. J. Alferes and J. N. Aparicio, The Extended Stable Models of Contradiction Removal Semantics. In: P. Barahona, L. M. Pereira and A. Porto, (eds.), Proceedings — EPIA 91, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    L. M. Pereira, Personal Communication, Berlin 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pétrie, C.J., Revised Dependency-Directed Backtracking for Default Reasoning, Proc. AAAI, 1987.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Przymusinska and T. Przymusinski, Semantic Issues in Deductive Databases and Logic Programs, in: R. B. Banerji (ed), Formal Techniques in Artificial Intelligence, A Sourcebook, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990, pp. 321–367.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    T. Przymusinski, Well-founded semantics coincides with three-valued stable semantics, Fundamenta Informaticae, XIII:445–463, 1990.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Przymusinski, Three-valued nonmonotonic formalisms and semantics of logic programs, Artificial Intelligence, 49, (1991), 309–343.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reinfrank, M., Fundamentals and Logical Foundations of Truth Maintenance, Linköping Studies in Science and Technology. Dissertations no. 221, Linköping University, 1989.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Van Gelder, K. A. Ross and J. S. Schlipf, The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. Journal of the ACM, 38(3), pp. 620–650, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    K. W. Wagner, Bounded Query Classes, Siam Journal On Computing, 19,5, pp. 833–846, 1990.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. Witteveen, Expansions of Logic Programs, in: D. Pearce and G. Wagner (eds), Logics in Al, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1992.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C. Witteveen and C. M. Jonker, Revision by expansion in logic programs, Reports of the Faculty of Technical Mathematics and Informatics no. 93-02, Delft University of Technology, 1993.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. Witteveen and G. Brewka, Skeptical Reason Maintenance and Belief Revision, Artificial Intelligence, 61 (1993) 1–36.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cees Witteveen
    • 1
  • Catholijn Jonker
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Mathematics and Computer ScienceDelft University of TechnologyAJ DelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Depts of Philosophy and Computer ScienceUtrecht UniversityCS UtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations