Negation as failure and constraints through abduction and defaults

  • L. Giordano
  • A. Martelli
  • M. L. Sapino
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 549)


The paper presents an extension of the abduction framework proposed by Eshghi and Kowalski to give the semantics of negation as failure in logic programming. The extension allows to cope with the presence of integrity constraints, not only for pruning inconsistent solutions, but for computing new solutions. This is achieved by adding constraints to the program and using them as logical formulae. Furthermore a new semantics based on defaults, equivalent to the previous one, is given for logic programs with negation as failure and constraints. Finally a transformation is presented which allows constraints to be eliminated, so that proof procedures for general clauses without constraints will be applicable.

The approach proposed in this paper is applicable not only to logic programs with negation as failure but to other nonmonotonic formalisms as well, and, for instance, it can be used to give a semantic characterization to justificationbased Truth Maintenance Systems with dependency-directed backtracking.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [EK89]
    Eshghi K. and Kowalski R.A., “Abduction Compared with Negation by Failure”, in Proc. Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, pp. 134–154, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. [Gef90]
    Geffner H., “Beyond Negation as Failure”, to appear in Proc. KR'91, Cambridge, USA, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. [GL88]
    Gelfond M.and Lifschitz V., “The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming”, in Proc. Fifth Int. Conf. and Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 1070–1080, Seattle, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. [GL90]
    Gelfond M. and Lifschitz V., “Logic Programs with Classical Negation”, in Proc. ICLP 90, pp.579–597, Jerusalem, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. [GM90a]
    Giordano L. and Martelli A., “Generalized Stable Models, Truth Maintenance and Conflict Resolution”, in Proc. ICLP 90, pp.427–441, Jerusalem, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. [GM90b]
    Giordano L. and Martelli A., “An Abductive Characterization of the TMS”, in Proc. ECAI 90, pp.308–313, Stockholm, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. [GM90c]
    Giordano L. and Martelli A., “Three-valued Labellings for Truth Maintenance Systems”, in Proc. ISMIS 90, pp.506–513, Knoxville, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. [KM90a]
    Kakas A.K. and Mancarella P., “Generalized Stable Models: a Semantics for Abduction”, in Proc. ECAI 90, pp.385–391, Stockholm, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. [KM90b]
    Kakas A.K. and Mancarella P., “On the Relation between Truth Maintenance and Abduction”, in Proc. 1st Pacific Rim International Conference on AI, PRICAI90, Nagoya, Japan, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. [MT89]
    Marek W. and Truszczynski M., “Stable Semantics for Logic Programs and Default Theories”, in Proc. NACLP 89, pp.243–256, Cleveland, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. [PC89]
    Pimentel S.G. and Cuadrado J.L., “A Truth Maintenance System Based on Stable Models”, in Proc. NACLP 89, pp.274–290, Cleveland, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Giordano
    • 1
  • A. Martelli
    • 1
  • M. L. Sapino
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations