Advertisement

Trans-epistemic semantics for logic programs

  • Arcot Rajasekar
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 928)

Abstract

Each stable model of a logic program is computed in isolation. This does not allow one to reason in any stable model with information from other stable models. Such information interchange is needed when computing with full introspection, as performed by Gelfond's epistemic specifications, or when modeling multi-agent reasoning using stable models. In this paper, we define syntactic and semantic structures that allow the use of information from multiple stable models when computing one stable model. Hence a notion of second order stability is introduced and every computed model should be stable at that level. We define a concept of trans-epistemic (te-) logic programs that is reduced to a logic program using information from a trans-epistemic interpretation. The te-interpretation is checked for stability against the set of stable models of the logic program using a consensus function. We discus the properties of trans-epistemic stable models and motivate their use with examples.

Keywords

Logic Program Stable Model Canonical Model Default Logic Intended Model 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. Gelfond. Strong Introspection. In Proc. of AAAI-91, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Gelfond. Logic Programming and Reasoning with Incomplete Information. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 12, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming. In R.A. Kowalski and K.A. Bowen, editors, Proc. 5 th International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 1070–1080, Seattle, Washington, August 15–19 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Lakemeyer and H.J. Levesque. A Tractable Knowledge Representation Service with Full Introspection. In Proc. TARK 88, 1988.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H.J. Levesque. All I Know: A Study in Autoepistemic Logic. Artificial Intelligence, 42(2–3):263–309, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.J. Lu, A. Nerode, J.B. Remmel, and V.S. Subrahmanian. Toward A Theory of Hybrid Knowledge Bases. Technical report, MSI, Cornell University, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    W. Marek, A. Nerode, and J.B. Remmel. A Contex for Belief Revision: FC-normal Nonmonotonic, Programs. In Proc. Workshop on Defeasible Reasoning and Constraint Solving, 1992. To appear in Annals of Pure and Applied Logic.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. Marek, A. Nerode, and J.B. Remmel. Rule Systems, Well-ordering and Forward Chaining. Technical report, MSI, Cornell University, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. Marek and M. Truszczynski. Relating autoepistemic and default logics. In Proceedings of KR-89, pages 276–288, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. Marek and M. Truszczynski. Non-Monotonic Logics: Context Dependent Reasoning. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Nerode and V.S. Subrahmanian. Hybrid Knowledge Bases. Technical report, University of Maryland, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. Przymusinski. A Knowledge Representation Framework Based on Autoepistemic Logic of Minimal Beliefs. In Proc. of Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning Retreat, Shaker Village, KY, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Rajasekar. Theories of Trans-Epistemic Defaults. Technical report, University of Kentucky, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Reiter. A Logic for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13(1 and 2):81–132, April 1980.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arcot Rajasekar
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of KentuckyLexington

Personalised recommendations