Handling Exceptions in Logic Programming without Negation as Failure

  • Roberto Confalonieri
  • Henri Prade
  • Juan Carlos Nieves
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6717)


Default rules, i.e. statements of the form normally a’s are b’s, are usually handled in Answer Set Programming by means of negation as failure which provides a way to capture exceptions to normal situations. In this paper we propose another approach which offers an operational counterpart to negation as failure, and which may be thought as a corresponding dual attitude. The approach amounts to an explicit rewriting of exceptions in default rules, together with the addition of completion rules that are consistent with current knowledge. It is shown that the approach can be applied to restore the consistency of inconsistent programs that implicitly involve specificity ordering between the rules. The approach is compared to previous works aiming at providing support to the rewriting of default rules. It is also shown how the proposed approach agrees with the results obtained in the classical way.


Logic Program Logic Programming Strict Rule Default Rule Handling Exception 
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.
    Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Practical Handling of Exception-Tainted Rules and Independence Information in Possibilistic Logic. Applied Intelligence 9, 101–127 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brewka, G.: Adding Priorities and Specificity to Default Logic. In: Proc. of the European Workshop on Logics in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 247–260. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Confalonieri, R., Prade, H.: Answer Set Programming for Computing Decisions Under Uncertainty. Accepted in the 11th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delgrande, J., Schaub, T., Tompits, H., Wang, K.: A Classification and Survey of Preference Handling Approaches in Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Computational Intelligence 20(2), 308–334 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T.H.: Compiling specificity into approaches to nonmonotonic reasoning. Artif. Intell. 90, 301–348 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory Pract. Log. Program 4, 95–138 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garcia, B.B., Lopes, J.G.P., Varejão, F.: Compiling default theory into extended logic programming. In: Proc. of the 7th Ibero-American Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 207–216. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garcia, L., Ngoma, S., Nicolas, P.: Dealing Automatically with Exceptions by Introducing Specificity in ASP. In: Proc. of the 10th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, pp. 614–625. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical Negation in Logic Programs and Disjunctive Databases. New Generation Computing 9(3/4), 365–386 (1991)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldzsmidt, M., Morris, P., Pearl, J.: A Maximum Entropy Approach to Nonmonotonic Reasoning. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 15, 220–232 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kowalski, R., Sadri, F.: Logic Programs with Exceptions. New Generation Computing 9, 387–400 (1991)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lloyd, J.W.: Foundations of logic programming, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pearl, J.: System z: a natural ordering of defaults with tractable applications to nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Proc. of the 3rd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, pp. 121–135. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dupin de Saint-Cyr, F., Prade, H.: Handling uncertainty and defeasibility in a possibilistic logic setting. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning 49, 67–82 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Touretzky, D.S., Horty, J.F., Thomason, R.H.: A clash of intuitions: the current state of nonmonotonic multiple inheritance systems. In: Proc. of Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 476–482. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1987)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Confalonieri
    • 1
  • Henri Prade
    • 2
  • Juan Carlos Nieves
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. Llenguatges i Sistemes InformàticsUniversitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Institut de Recherche en Informatique Toulouse (IRIT)Universitè Paul SabatierToulouse Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations