Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Well-founded and stationary models of logic programs

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We investigate the class ofstationary or partial stable models of normal logic programs. This important class of models includes all (total)stable models, and, moreover, thewell-founded model is always its smallest member. Stationary models have several natural fixed-point definitions and can be equivalently obtained as expansions or extensions of suitable autoepistemic or default theories. By taking a particular subclass of this class of models one can obtain different semantics of logic programs, including the stable semantics and the well-founded semantics. Stationary models can be also naturally extended to the class of all disjunctive logic programs. These features of stationary models designate them as an important class of models with applications reaching far beyond the realm of logic programming.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. K.R. Apt and M. Bezem, Acyclic programs, in: D.H.D. Warren and P. Szeredi (eds.),Proc. Seventh Int. Conf. on Logic Programming (MIT Press, 1990) pp. 617–633.

  2. K. Apt, H. Blair and A. Walker, Towards a theory of declarative knowledge, in: J. Minker (ed.),Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming (Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1988) pp. 89–142.

    Google Scholar 

  3. N. Bidoit and C. Froidevaux, Minimalism subsumes default logic and circumscription in stratified logic programming, in:IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science, Ithaca, New York, USA, 1987, pp. 89–97.

  4. N. Bidoit and C. Froidevaux, General logical databases and programs: Default logic semantics and stratification, J. Inf. Comput. (1991) 15–54.

  5. S. Bonnier, U. Nilsson and T. Naslund, A simple fixed point characterization of three-valued stable model semantics, Research report, University of Linkoping (1990).

  6. F. Bry, Logic programming as constructivism: A formalism and its application to databases, in:Proc. Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD, 1989, pp. 34–50.

  7. C. Baral and V.S. Subrahmanian, Dualities between alternative semantics for logic programming and non-monotonic reasoning, in: A. Nerode, W. Marek and V.S. Subrahmanian (eds.),Proc. First Int. Workshop on Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning, Washington, D.C., 1991 (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1991) pp. 69–86.

    Google Scholar 

  8. L. Cavedon, Consistency and completeness properties for logic programs, in: G. Levi and M. Martelli (eds.),Proc. Sixth Int. Logic Programming Conf., Lisbon, Portugal, Association for Logic Programming (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1989) pp. 571–584.

    Google Scholar 

  9. K.L. Clark, Negation as failure, in: H. Gallaire and J. Minker (eds.),Logic and Data Bases (Plenum Press, New York, 1978) pp. 293–322.

    Google Scholar 

  10. W. Chen and D.S. Warren, A practical approach to computing the well-founded semantics, Research report, SUNY at Stony Brook (1992).

  11. J. Dix, Classifying semantics of logic programs, in: A. Nerode, W. Marek and V.S. Subrahmanian (eds.),Proc. First Int. Workshop on Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning, Washington, D.C., 1991 (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1991) pp. 166–180.

    Google Scholar 

  12. M. Fitting, A Kripke-Kleene semantics for logic programs, J. Logic Progr. 2(4) (1985) 295–312.

    Google Scholar 

  13. M. Gelfond, On stratified autoepistemic theories, in:Proc. AAAI-87, American Association for Artificial Intelligence (Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1987) pp. 207–211.

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz, The stable model semantics for logic programming, in: R. Kowalski and K. Bowen (eds.),Proc. Fifth Logic Programming Symp. Association for Logic Programming (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1988) pp. 1070–1080.

    Google Scholar 

  15. M. Gelfond, H. Przymusinska and T. Przymusinski, Minimal model semantics vs, negation as failure: A comparison of semantics, in:Proc. Int. Symp. on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, ACM SIGART (1988) pp. 335–343.

  16. M. Gelfond, H. Przymusinska and T. Przymusinski, On the relationship between circumscription and negation as failure, J. Artificial Intelligence 38 (1989) 75–94.

    Google Scholar 

  17. J. Horty, R. Thomason and D. Touretzky, A skeptical theory of inheritance in non-monotonic semantic nets, in:Proc. AAAI-87, American Association for Artificial Intelligence (Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  18. H.A. Kautz and B. Selman, Hard problems for simple default logics, in: R. Brachman, H. Leveque and R. Reiter (eds.),Proc. First Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'89), Toronto, Canada (Morgan Kaufmann, 1989) pp. 189–197.

  19. K. Kunen, Negation in logic programming, J. Logic Progr. 4(4) (1987) 289–308.

    Google Scholar 

  20. K. Kunen, Some remarks on the completed database, in: R. Kowalski and K. Bowen (eds.),Proc. Fifth Logic Programming Symp., Association for Logic Programming (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1988) pp. 978–992.

    Google Scholar 

  21. V. Lifschitz, On the declarative semantics of logic programs with negation, in: J. Minker (ed.),Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming (Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1988) pp. 177–192.

    Google Scholar 

  22. J.W. Lloyd,Foundations of Logic Programming (Springer, New York, 1984), 1st Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  23. J.W. Lloyd,Foundations of Logic Programming (Springer, New York, 1987), 2nd Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  24. L. Li and J.H. You, Making default inferences from logic programs, J. Comput. Intelligence 7 (1991) 142–153.

    Google Scholar 

  25. D. Makinson, General theory of cumulative inference, in:Proc. Second Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning, Munich, 1988 (Springer Verlag, 1988) pp. 1–18.

  26. J. McCarthy, Circumscription — a form of non-monotonic reasoning, J. Artificial Intelligence 13 (1980) 27–39.

    Google Scholar 

  27. J. Minker, On indefinite data bases and the closed world assumption, in:Proc. 6th Conf. on Automated Deduction (Springer, New York, 1982) pp. 292–308.

    Google Scholar 

  28. R.C. Moore, Semantic considerations on non-monotonic logic, J. Artificial Intelligence 25 (1985) 75–94.

    Google Scholar 

  29. W. Marek and M. Truszczynski, Autoepistemic logic, Research report, University of Kentucky, University of Kentucky (1988).

  30. W. Marek and M. Truszczynski, Relating autoepistemic and default logics, in: R. Brachman, H. Leveque and R. Reiter (eds.),Proc. First Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'89), Toronto, Canada (Morgan Kaufmann, 1989) pp. 189–197.

  31. H. Przymusinska and T.C. Przymusinski, Semantic issues in deductive databases and logic programs, in: R. Banerji (ed.),Formal Techniques in Artificial Intelligence (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990) pp. 321–367.

    Google Scholar 

  32. H. Przymusinska and T.C. Przymusinski, Weakly stratified logic programs, Fundamenta Informaticae 13 (1990) 51–65.

    Google Scholar 

  33. H. Przymusinska and T.C. Przymusinski, Stationary default extensions, Fundamenta Informaticae 20 (1994): Special issue devoted to the Fourth Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning, Plymouth, Vermont, 1992.

  34. H. Przymusinska, T. Przymusinski and H. Seki, Soundness and completeness of partial deductions for well-founded semantics, in: A. Voronkov (ed.),Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning, St. Petersburg, Russia, 1992, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 624 (Springer, 1992) pp. 1–12.

  35. T.C. Przymusinski, On the declarative semantics of stratified deductive databases and logic programs, in: J. Minker (ed.),Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming (Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1988) pp. 193–216.

    Google Scholar 

  36. T.C. Przymusinski, On the relationship between non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming, in:Proc. AAAI-88, American Association for Artificial Intelligence (Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1988) pp. 444–448. [The full version appeared in: T.C. Przymusinski, Nonmonotonic reasoning vs. logic programming: a new perspective, in:The Foundations of Artificial Intelligence. A. Sourcebook, D. Partridge and Y. Wilks (eds.) (Cambridge University Press, London, 1990) pp. 49–71.]

    Google Scholar 

  37. T.C. Przymusinski, Every logic program has a natural stratification and an iterated fixed point model, in:Proc. Eighth Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD, (1989) pp. 11–21.

  38. T.C. Przymusinski, On the declarative and procedural semantics of logic programs, J. Autom. Reasoning 5 (1989) 167–205.

    Google Scholar 

  39. T.C. Przymusinski, The well-founded semantics coincides with the three-valued stable semantics, Fundamenta Informaticae 13(4) (1990) 445–464.

    Google Scholar 

  40. T.C. Przymusinski, Autoepistemic logics of closed beliefs and logic programming, in: A. Nerode, W. Marek and V.S. Subrahmanian (eds.),Proc. First Int. Workshop on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Washington, D.C., 1991 (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1991) pp. 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  41. T.C. Przymusinski, Semantics of disjunctive logic programs and deductive databases, in: C. Delobel, M. Kifer and Y. Masunaga (eds.),Proc. Second Int. Conf. on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases (DOOD'91) (Springer, Munich, Germany, 1991) pp. 85–107.

    Google Scholar 

  42. T.C. Przymusinski, Stable semantics for disjunctive programs, New Generation Comput. J. 9 (1991) 401–424. Extended abstract appeared in: Extended stable semantics for normal and disjunctive logic programs,Proc. 7th Int. Logic Programming Conf., Jerusalem (MIT Press, 1990) pp. 459–477.

    Google Scholar 

  43. T.F. Przymusinski, Three-valued non-monotonic formalisms and semantics of logic programs, J. Artificial Intelligence 49 (1991) 309–343. Extended abstract appeared in: Three-valued nonmonotonic formalisms and logic programming,Proc. First Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'89), Toronto, Canada (Morgan Kaufmann, 1989) pp. 341–348.

    Google Scholar 

  44. T.C. Przymusinski, A knowledge representation framework based on autoepistemic logic of minimal beliefs, in:Proc. Twelfth National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94), Seattle, Washington, 1994, American Association for Artificial Intelligence (Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1994), in press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. T.C. Przymusinski, Static semantics for normal and disjunctive logic programs, to be published.

  46. R. Reiter, On closed-world data bases, in: H. Gallaire and J. Minker (eds.),Logic and Data Bases (Plenum Press, New York, 1978) pp. 55–76.

    Google Scholar 

  47. R. Reiter, A logic for default theory, J. Artificial Intelligence 13 (1980) 81–132.

    Google Scholar 

  48. K. Ross, A procedural semantics for well founded negation in logic programs, in:Proc. Eighth Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD (1989) pp. 22–33.

  49. J. Shepherdson, Negation as finite failure: A comparison of Clark's completed data bases and Reiter's closed world assumption, J. Logic Progr. 1 (1984) 51–79.

    Google Scholar 

  50. J.C. Shepherdson, Negation in logic programming, in: J. Minker (ed.),Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming (Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1988) pp. 19–88.

    Google Scholar 

  51. M. Van Emden and R. Kowalski, The semantics of predicate logic as a programming language, J. ACM 23 (1976) 733–742.

    Google Scholar 

  52. A. Van Gelder, The alternating fixpoint of logic programs with negation, in:Proc. Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD (1989) pp. 1–10.

  53. A. Van Gelder, Negation as failure using tight derivations for general logic programs, J. Logic Progr. 6 (1989) 109–133. Preliminary versions appeared in:Third IEEE Symp. Logic Programming, 1986 andFoundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, J. Minker (ed.) (Morgan Kaufmann, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  54. A. Van Gelder, K.A. Ross and J.S. Schlipf, The well-founded semantics for general logic programs, J. ACM (1990) to appear. Preliminary abstract appeared in:Seventh ACM Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, 1988, pp. 221–230.

  55. D.S. Warren, The XWAM: A machine that integrates Prolog and deductive database query evaluation, Technical Report #25, SUNY at Stony Brook (1989).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of California, 92521, Riverside, CA, USA

    Teodor C. Przymusinski

Authors
  1. Teodor C. Przymusinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Partially supported by the National Science Foundation grant #IRI-9313061.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Przymusinski, T.C. Well-founded and stationary models of logic programs. Ann Math Artif Intell 12, 141–187 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01530784

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01530784

Keywords

Search

Navigation