Advertisement

A “Conservative” Approach to Extending Answer Set Programming with Non-Herbrand Functions

  • Marcello Balduccini
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7265)

Abstract

In this paper we propose an extension of Answer Set Programming (ASP) by non-Herbrand functions, i.e. functions over non-Herbrand domains. Introducing support for such functions allows for an economic and natural representation of certain kinds of knowledge that are comparatively cumbersome to represent in ASP. The key difference between our approach and other techniques for the support of non-Herbrand functions is that our extension is more “conservative” from a knowledge representation perspective. In fact, we purposefully designed the new language so that (1) the representation of relations is fully retained; (2) the representation of knowledge using non-Herbrand functions follows in a natural way from the typical ASP strategies; (3) the semantics is an extension of the the semantics of ASP from [9], allowing for a comparatively simple incorporation of various extensions of ASP such as weak constraints, probabilistic constructs and consistency-restoring rules.

Keywords

Logic Program Knowledge Representation Strong Negation Graph Coloring Problem Positive Program 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Balduccini, M., Gelfond, M.: Diagnostic reasoning with A-Prolog. Journal of Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP) 3(4-5), 425–461 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press (January 2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baral, C., Gelfond, M., Rushton, N.: Probabilistic reasoning with answer sets. Journal of Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP) 9(1), 57–144 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baselice, S., Bonatti, P.A.: A Decidable Subclass of Finitary Programs. Journal of Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP) 10(4-6), 481–496 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buccafurri, F., Leone, N., Rullo, P.: Adding Weak Constraints to Disjunctive Datalog. In: Proceedings of the 1997 Joint Conference on Declarative Programming APPIA-GULP-PRODE (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cabalar, P.: Functional Answer Set Programming. Journal of Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP) 11, 203–234 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Calimeri, F., Cozza, S., Ianni, G., Leone, N.: Enhancing ASP by Functions: Decidable Classes and Implementation Techniques. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1666–1670 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gebser, M., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T.: Constraint Answer Set Solving. In: Hill, P.M., Warren, D.S. (eds.) ICLP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5649, pp. 235–249. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical Negation in Logic Programs and Disjunctive Databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385 (1991)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lifschitz, V.: Logic Programs with Intensional Functions (Preliminary Report). In: ICLP11 Workshop on Answer Set Programming and Other Computing Paradigms, ASPOCP 2011 (July 2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lifschitz, V., Turner, H.: Splitting a logic program. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 1994), pp. 23–38 (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin, F., Wang, Y.: Answer Set Programming with Functions. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2008), pp. 454–465 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marek, V.W., Truszczynski, M.: Stable Models and an Alternative Logic Programming Paradigm. In: The Logic Programming Paradigm: a 25-Year Perspective, pp. 375–398. Springer, Berlin (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Syrjänen, T.: Omega-Restricted Logic Programs. In: Eiter, T., Faber, W., Truszczyński, M. (eds.) LPNMR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2173, pp. 267–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang, Y., You, J.-H., Yuan, L.-Y., Zhang, M.: Weight Constraint Programs with Functions. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5753, pp. 329–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcello Balduccini
    • 1
  1. 1.Kodak Research LaboratoriesEastman Kodak CompanyRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations