Characterization Theorems for Revision of Logic Programs

  • Nicolas Schwind
  • Katsumi Inoue
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8148)

Abstract

We address the problem of belief revision of logic programs, i.e., how to incorporate to a logic program \(\mathcal{P}\) a new logic program \(\mathcal{Q}\). Based on the structure of SE interpretations, Delgrande et al. [5] adapted the AGM postulates to identify the rational behavior of generalized logic program (GLP) revision operators and introduced some specific operators. In this paper, a constructive characterization of all rational GLP revision operators is given in terms of an ordering among propositional interpretations with some further conditions specific to SE interpretations. It provides an intuitive, complete procedure for the construction of all rational GLP revision operators and makes easier the comprehension of their semantic properties. In particular, we show that every rational GLP revision operator is derived from a propositional revision operator satisfying the original AGM postulates. Taking advantage of our characterization, we embed the GLP revision operators into structures of Boolean lattices, that allow us to bring to light some potential weaknesses in the adapted AGM postulates. To illustrate our claim, we introduce and characterize axiomatically two specific classes of (rational) GLP revision operators which arguably have a drastic behavior.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50(2), 510–530 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alferes, J.J., Leite, J.A., Pereira, L.M., Przymusinska, H., Przymusinski, T.C.: Dynamic updates of non-monotonic knowledge bases. Journal of Logic Programming 45(1-3), 43–70 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cabalar, P., Ferraris, P.: Propositional theories are strongly equivalent to logic programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 7(6) (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dalal, M.: Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision: Preliminary report. In: Proc. of the 7th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 1988, pp. 475–479 (1988)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: Belief revision of logic programs under answer set semantics. In: Proc. of the 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 2008, pp. 411–421 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: A general approach to belief change in answer set programming. CoRR, abs/0912.5511 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delgrande, J., Schaub, T., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: Merging logic programs under answer set semantics. In: Hill, P.M., Warren, D.S. (eds.) ICLP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5649, pp. 160–174. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Sabbatini, G., Tompits, H.: On properties of update sequences based on causal rejection. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 2(6), 711–767 (2002)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eiter, T., Fink, M., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: On eliminating disjunctions in stable logic programming. In: Proc. of the 9th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 2004, pp. 447–458 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eiter, T., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: On solution correspondences in answer set programming. In: Proc. of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2005, pp. 97–102 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Inoue, K., Sakama, C.: Negation as failure in the head. Journal of Logic Programming 35(1), 39–78 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: A unified view of propositional knowledge base updates. In: Proc. of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 1989, pp. 1413–1419 (1989)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In: Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 1991, pp. 387–394 (1991)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artificial Intelligence 52(3), 263–294 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Konieczny, S., Pino Pérez, R.: Merging information under constraints: a logical framework. Journal of Logic and Computation 12(5), 773–808 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lifschitz, V., Pearce, D., Valverde, A.: Strongly equivalent logic programs. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(4), 526–541 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lifschitz, V., Woo, T.Y.C.: Answer sets in general nonmonotonic reasoning (preliminary report). In: Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 1992, pp. 603–614 (1992)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Satoh, K.: Nonmonotonic reasoning by minimal belief revision. In: Proc. of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, FGCS 1988, pp. 455–462 (1988)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Turner, H.: Strong equivalence made easy: nested expressions and weight constraints. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3(4-5), 609–622 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang, Y., Foo, N.Y.: Towards generalized rule-based updates. In: Proc. of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 1997, pp. 82–88 (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolas Schwind
    • 1
  • Katsumi Inoue
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute of InformaticsChiyoda-kuJapan

Personalised recommendations