Manifold Answer-Set Programs for Meta-reasoning

  • Wolfgang Faber
  • Stefan Woltran
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5753)

Abstract

In answer-set programming (ASP), the main focus usually is on computing answer sets which correspond to solutions to the problem represented by a logic program. Simple reasoning over answer sets is sometimes supported by ASP systems (usually in the form of computing brave or cautious consequences), but slightly more involved reasoning problems require external postprocessing. Generally speaking, it is often desirable to use (a subset of) brave or cautious consequences of a program P1 as input to another program P2 in order to provide the desired solutions to the problem to be solved. In practice, the evaluation of the program P1 currently has to be decoupled from the evaluation of P2 using an intermediate step which collects the desired consequences of P1 and provides them as input to P2. In this work, we present a novel method for representing such a procedure within a single program, and thus within the realm of ASP itself. Our technique relies on rewriting P1 into a so-called manifold program, which allows for accessing all desired consequences of P1 within a single answer set. Then, this manifold program can be evaluated jointly with P2 avoiding any intermediate computation step. For determining the consequences within the manifold program we use weak constraints, which is strongly motivated by complexity considerations. As an application, we present an encoding for computing the ideal extension of an abstract argumentation framework.

References

  1. 1.
    Marek, V.W., Truszczyński, M.: Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In: The Logic Programming Paradigm – A 25-Year Perspective, pp. 375–398 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Niemelä, I.: Logic programming with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 25(3-4), 241–273 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. CUP (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gelfond, M.: Representing knowledge in A-Prolog. In: Kakas, A.C., Sadri, F. (eds.) Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2408, pp. 413–451. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gebser, M., Liu, L., Namasivayam, G., Neumann, A., Schaub, T., Truszczyński, M.: The first answer set programming system competition. In: Baral, C., Brewka, G., Schlipf, J. (eds.) LPNMR 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4483, pp. 3–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bravo, L., Bertossi, L.E.: Logic programs for consistently querying data integration systems. In: IJCAI 2003, pp. 10–15 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saccà, D.: Multiple total stable models are definitely needed to solve unique solution problems. Inf. Process. Lett. 58(5), 249–254 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buccafurri, F., Leone, N., Rullo, P.: Enhancing disjunctive datalog by constraints. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 12(5), 845–860 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., Scarcello, F.: The dlv system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 7(3), 499–562 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reiter, R.: On closed world data bases. In: Logic and Databases, pp. 55–76. Plenum Press (1978)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 619–641 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 642–674 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Comput. 9(3/4), 365–386 (1991)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dunne, P.E.: The computational complexity of ideal semantics I: Abstract argumentation frameworks. In: COMMA 2008, pp. 147–158. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dunne, P.E.: Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph-theoretic constraints. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 701–729 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Osorio, M., Zepeda, C., Nieves, J.C., Cortés, U.: Inferring acceptable arguments with answer set programming. In: ENC 2005, pp. 198–205 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Egly, U., Gaggl, S., Woltran, S.: Answer-set programming encodings for argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings ASPOCP 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eiter, T., Veith, H.: On the complexity of data disjunctions. Theor. Comput. Sci. 288(1), 101–128 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T.: Reasoning credulously and skeptically within a single extension. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 12(2), 259–285 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G.: Computing preferred answer sets by meta-interpretation in answer set programming. TPLP 3(4-5), 463–498 (2003)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Faber
    • 1
  • Stefan Woltran
    • 2
  1. 1.University of CalabriaItaly
  2. 2.Vienna University of TechnologyAustria

Personalised recommendations