Logic Programming with Defaults and Argumentation Theories

  • Hui Wan
  • Benjamin Grosof
  • Michael Kifer
  • Paul Fodor
  • Senlin Liang
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5649)

Abstract

We define logic programs with defaults and argumentation theories, a new framework that unifies most of the earlier proposals for defeasible reasoning in logic programming. We present a model-theoretic semantics and study its reducibility and well-behavior properties. We use the framework as an elegant and flexible foundation to extend and improve upon Generalized Courteous Logic Programs (GCLP) [19]—one of the popular forms of defeasible reasoning. The extensions include higher-order and object-oriented features of Hilog and F-Logic [7,21]. The improvements include much simpler, incremental reasoning algorithms and more intuitive behavior. The framework and its Courteous family instantiation were implemented as an extension to the FLORA-2 system.

Keywords

Defeasible reasoning argumentation theory well-founded models 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 2(2), 255–287 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antoniou, G., Maher, M.J.: Embedding defeasible logic into logic programs. In: Int’l Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 393–404 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader, F., Hollunder, B.: Priorities on defaults with prerequisites, and their application in treating specificity in terminological default logic. Journal of Automated Reasoning 15(1), 41–68 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. AI 93(1-2), 63–101 (1997)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Preferred answer sets for extended logic programs. Artificial Intelligence 109, 297–356 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Prioritizing default logic. In: Intellectics and Computational Logic – Papers in Honour of Wolfgang Bibel, pp. 27–45. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, W., Kifer, M., Warren, D.S.: HiLog: A foundation for higher-order logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming 15(3), 187–230 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clark, K.L.: Negation as failure. In: Gallaire, H., Minker, J. (eds.) Logic and Data Bases, pp. 292–322. Plenum Press, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Delgrande, J., Schaub, T., Tompits, H., Wang, K.: A classification and survey of preference handling approaches in nonmonotonic reasoning. Computational Intelligence 20(12), 308–334 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T., Tompits, H.: A framework for compiling preferences in logic programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 2, 129–187 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dung, P.M., Son, T.C.: An argument-based approach to reasoning with specificity. Artificial Intelligence 133(1-2), 35–85 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G.: Computing preferred answer sets by meta-interpretation in answer set programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3(4), 463–498 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ganjugunte, S.: Extending reasoning infrastructure for rules on the semantic web: Well-founded negation, incremental courteous logic programs, and interoperability tools in sweetrules. Master’s thesis, UMBC (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory Practice of Logic Programming 4(2), 95–138 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van Gelder, A., Ross, K.A., Schlipf, J.S.: The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. Journal of the ACM 38, 620–650 (1991)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Proceedings of ICLP/SLP, pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gelfond, M., Son, T.C.: Reasoning with prioritized defaults. In: Dix, J., Moniz Pereira, L., Przymusinski, T.C. (eds.) LPKR 1997. LNCS, vol. 1471, pp. 164–223. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grosof, B.N.: Prioritized conflict handling for logic programs. In: Int’l Logic Programming Symposium, October 1997, pp. 197–211 (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grosof, B.N.: A courteous compiler from generalized courteous logic programs to ordinary logic programs. Technical Report Supplementary Update Follow-On to RC 21472, IBM (July 1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karacapilidis, N.I., Papadias, D., Gordon, T.F.: An argumentation based framework for defeasible and qualitative reasoning. In: XIIIth Brazilian Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Advances in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1–10. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kifer, M., Lausen, G., Wu, J.: Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages. Journal of ACM 42, 741–843 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lakshmanan, L.V.S., Thirunarayan, K.: Declarative frameworks for inheritance. In: Chomicki, J., Saake, G. (eds.) Logics for Databases and Information Systems, pp. 357–388. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lloyd, J.W.: Foundations of Logic Programming, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maier, F., Nute, D.: Relating defeasible logic to the well-founded semantics for normal logic programs. In: Int’l Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nute, D.: Defeasible logic. In: Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming, pp. 353–395. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1994)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pereira, L.M., Pinto, A.M.: Reductio ad absurdum argumentation in normal logic programs. In: ArgNMR workshop at LPNMR, pp. 96–113 (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Prakken, H.: An argumentation framework in default logic. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 9(1-2), 93–132 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Prakken, H.: A logical framework for modelling legal argument. In: ICAIL 1993: 4th Int’l Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 1–9. ACM, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Przymusinski, T.C.: Well-founded and stationary models of logic programs. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 12, 141–187 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sakama, C., Inoue, K.: Prioritized logic programming and its application to commonsense reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 123(1-2), 185–222 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Touretzky, D.S.: The Mathematics of Inheritance Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1986)MATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wang, K., Zhou, L., Lin, F.: Alternating fixpoint theory for logic programs with priority. In: Palamidessi, C., Moniz Pereira, L., Lloyd, J.W., Dahl, V., Furbach, U., Kerber, M., Lau, K.-K., Sagiv, Y., Stuckey, P.J. (eds.) CL 2000. LNCS, vol. 1861, pp. 164–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yang, G., Kifer, M.: Inheritance in rule-based frame systems: Semantics and inference. Journal on Data Semantics 2800, 69–97 (2003)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhang, Y., Wu, C.M., Bai, Y.: Implementing prioritized logic programming. AI Communications 14(4), 183–196 (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hui Wan
    • 1
  • Benjamin Grosof
    • 2
  • Michael Kifer
    • 1
  • Paul Fodor
    • 1
  • Senlin Liang
    • 1
  1. 1.State University of New York at Stony BrookUSA
  2. 2.Vulcan, Inc.USA

Personalised recommendations