# An efficient computation of the extended generalized closed world assumption by support-for-negation sets

• Dietmar Seipel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 822)

## Abstract

Closed world assumptions are one of the major approaches for non-monotonic reasoning in artificial intelligence. In [16] this formalism is applied to disjunctive logic programs, i.e. logic programs with positive disjunctive rule heads and positive atoms in the rule bodies. The disjunctive closure operator $$\mathcal{T}_P^S$$ allows for the derivation of the set $$\mathcal{M}\mathcal{S}_P$$ of all positive disjunctive clauses logically implied by the program P, the minimal model state. On the other hand, disjunctive clauses over negated atoms are derived in the extended generalized closed world assumption$$\mathcal{E}\mathcal{G}\mathcal{C}\mathcal{W}\mathcal{A}_P$$. Such a clause is the negation of a conjunction of positive atoms. $$\mathcal{E}\mathcal{G}\mathcal{C}\mathcal{W}\mathcal{A}_P$$ contains all conjunctions which are false in all minimal Herbrand models of the program.

We present efficient δ-iteration techniques for computing the closed world assumption $$\mathcal{E}\mathcal{G}\mathcal{C}\mathcal{W}\mathcal{A}_P$$ based on an iterative computation of the set of all support-for-negation sets SN(C) for conjunctions C, i.e. certain sets of clauses which characterize $$\mathcal{E}\mathcal{G}\mathcal{C}\mathcal{W}\mathcal{A}_P :C \varepsilon \mathcal{E}\mathcal{G}\mathcal{C}\mathcal{W}\mathcal{A}_P$$ iff $$\mathcal{M}\mathcal{S}_P \vDash SN(C)$$. The support-for-negation sets SN(A) for atoms A are easily derived from the minimal model state $$\mathcal{M}\mathcal{S}_P$$. We will propose a bottom-up computation deriving the support-for-negation sets of longer conjunctions from shorter ones based on an algebraic formula given by [16]: SN(C1 ∧ C2) = SN(C1) ∀ SN(C2). We will present techniques for the efficient computation of these disjunctions of two clause sets and a δ-iteration approach for computing the support-for-negation sets of a sequence of growing minimal model states.

For disjunctive normal logic programs, i.e. logic programs with positive disjunctive rule heads and — possibly — negated atoms in the rule bodies, these operators form a basis for computing the generalized disjunctive well-founded semantics.

## References

1. [1]
A. Abdelmoty, M. Williams, N. Paton: Deduction and Deductive Databases for Geographic Data Handling, Proc. Intl. Symposium on Advances in Spatial Databases 1993 (SSD'93), pp. 443–464.Google Scholar
2. [2]
C. Baral, J. Lobo, J. Minker: Generalized Well-Founded Semantics for Logic Programs, Proc. Intl. Conf. on Automated Deduction 1989, pp. 102–116.Google Scholar
3. [3]
F. Bancilhon, R. Ramakrishnan: An Amateur's Introduction to Recursive Query Processing Strategies, Proc. ACM SIGMOD 1986, pp. 16–52.Google Scholar
4. [4]
S. Ceri, G. Gottlob, L. Tanca: Logic Programming and Databases, Springer, 1990.Google Scholar
5. [5]
W. Chen, D.S. Warren: A Goal-Oriented Approach to Computing Well-Founded Semantics, Proc. Joint Intl. Conf. and Symp. on Logic Prog. 1992, pp. 589–603.Google Scholar
6. [6]
W. Chen, D.S. Warren: Query Evaluation under the Well-Founded Semantics, Proc. ACM PODS 1993.Google Scholar
7. [7]
8. [8]
J. Dix: Classifying Semantics of Disjunctive Logic Programs, Proc. Joint. Intl. Conf. and Symp. on Logic Programming 1992, pp. 798–812.Google Scholar
9. [9]
U. Fuhrbach: Computing Answers for Disjunctive Logic Programs, Proc. ILPS Workshop on Disjunctive Logic Programs 1991.Google Scholar
10. [10]
J.A. Fernández, J. Minker: Theory and Algorithms for Disjunctive Deductive Databases, Programmirovanie J. 1993, Academy of Sciences of Russia.Google Scholar
11. [11]
M. Fitting: The Family of Stable Models, Journal of Logic Programming, vol. 17(3,4), 1993, pp. 197–225.Google Scholar
12. [12]
M. Gelfond, V. Lifschitz: The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming, Proc. Intl. Conf. and Symp. on Logic Programming 1988, pp. 1070–1080.Google Scholar
13. [13]
U. Güntzer, W. KieΒling, R. Bayer: On the Evaluation of Recursion in (Deductive) Database Systems by Efficient Differential Fixpoint Iteration, Proc. Intl. Conf. on Data Engineering 1987, pp. 120–129.Google Scholar
14. [14]
G. Köstler, W. KieΒling, H. Thöne, U. Güntzer: The Differential Fixpoint Operator with Subsumption, Proc. Intl. Conf. DOOD 1993, pp. 35–48.Google Scholar
15. [15]
J.W. Lloyd: Foundations of Logic Programming, Springer, second edition, 1987.Google Scholar
16. [16]
J. Lobo, J. Minker, A. Rajasekar: Foundations of Disjunctive Logic Programming, MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
17. [17]
J. Pearl: Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference, Morgan Kaufman, 1988.Google Scholar
18. [18]
T.C. Przymusinski: Stationary Semantics for Disjunctive Logic Programs and Deductive Databases, Proc. North-American Conf. of Logic Prog. 1990, pp. 42–59.Google Scholar
19. [19]
D. Seipel, H. Argenton: Evaluation Techniques for Disjunctive Logic Programs, Proc. Symposium on Operations Research 1993.Google Scholar
20. [20]
D. Seipel: Tree-Based Fixpoint Iteration for Disjunctive Logic Programs, Proc. Workshop on Logic Prog. with Incomplete Inf., Intl. Symp. on Logic Prog. 1993.Google Scholar
21. [21]
D. Seipel, H. Thöne: An Application of Disjunctive Logic Programming with Incomplete Information, Proc. Intl. Conf. on Expert Syst. for Development 1994.Google Scholar
22. [22]
J.D. Ullman: Principles of Database and Knowledge-Base Systems, Volume I,II, Computer Science Press, 1988/89.Google Scholar
23. [23]
A. Van Gelder, K.A. Ross, J.S. Schlipf: The Well-Founded Semantics for General Logic Programs, JACM, vol. 38(3), 1991, pp. 620–650.Google Scholar