Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byHaley Molyneaux Modified over 2 years ago

1
A rewritting method for Well-Founded Semantics with Explicit Negation Pedro Cabalar University of Corunna, SPAIN.

2
2 Introduction Logic programming (LP) semantics for default negation: –Stable models [Gelfond&Lifschitz88] –Well-Founded Semantics (WFS) [van Gelder et al. 91] Bottom-up computation for WFS [Brass et al. 01] –More efficient than van Gelder’s alternated fixpoint –Based on program transformations

3
3 Introduction Extended Logic Programming: default negation (not p) plus explicit negation ( ) : –Answer Sets [Gelfond&Lifschitz91] –WFS with explicit negation (WFSX) [Pereira&Alferes92] p Our work: extend Brass et al’s method to WFSX –Adding two natural transformations –Helps to understand relation WFS vs. WFSX

4
Outline Some LP definitions Brass et al’s method WFSX Coherence transformations Conclusions

5
Outline Some LP definitions Brass et al’s method WFSX Coherence transformations Conclusions

6
6 Some LP definitions Logic program P: set of rules like a b, not c c not b b Reduct P I : we use I to interprete all ‘not p’. Example: take I={a,b}

7
7 Some LP definitions Logic program P: set of rules like a b, not c c not b b Reduct P I : we use I to interprete all ‘not p’. Example: take I={a,b} (I) = least model of P I Stable model: any fixpoint I = (I) Well-founded model (WFM): –Positive atoms I + = least fixpoint of –Negative atoms I - = HB – greatest fixpoint of l.f.p. g.f.p. + - HB

8
Outline Some LP definitions Brass et al’s method WFSX Coherence transformations Conclusions

9
Outline Some LP definitions Brass et al’s method WFSX Coherence transformations Conclusions

10
10 Brass et al’s method Trivial interpretation: a 3-valued interpretation where –Positive atoms I + = facts(P) –Negative atoms I - = HB – heads(P) We exhaustively apply 5 program transformations PNSFL The trivial interpretation of the final program will be the WFM

11
11 Brass et al’s method: an example a not b, cd not g, e b not ae not g, d c f not d d not cf g, not e I + = facts(P) = {c} I - = HB – heads(P) = {g}

12
12 Brass et al’s method: an example a not b, cd not g, e b not ae not g, d c f not d d not cf g, not e I + = facts(P) = {c} I - = HB – heads(P) = {g} S Success:delete c from bodies Negative reduction:delete rules with not c in the body N

13
13 Brass et al’s method: an example a not b, cd not g, e b not ae not g, d c f not d d not cf g, not e I + = facts(P) = {c} I - = HB – heads(P) = {g} P Positive reduction:delete not g from bodies Failure:delete rules with g in the body F

14
14 Brass et al’s method: an example a not bd e b not ae d c f not d I + = facts(P) = {c} I - = HB – heads(P) = {g} Interesting property: exhausting {P,N,S,F} yields Fitting’s model … but for WFS we must get rid of positive cycles (d,e)

15
15 Brass et al’s method: an example a not bd e b not ae d c f not d I + = facts(P) = {c} I - = HB – heads(P) = {g} L Positive loop detection: delete rules with some p ( ) optimistic viewing: “what if all not’s happened to be true?”

16
16 Brass et al’s method: an example a not bd e b not ae d c f not d I + = facts(P) = {c} I - = HB – heads(P) = {g} L Positive loop detection: delete rules with some p ( ) ( ) = {a, b, c, f }

17
17 Brass et al’s method: an example a not bd e b not ae d c f not d I + = facts(P) = {c} I - = HB – heads(P) = {g} L Positive loop detection: delete rules with some p ( ) ( ) = {a, b, c, f } i.e. delete rules with some {d, e, g}

18
18 Brass et al’s method: an example a not b b not a c f not d I + = facts(P) = {c} I - = HB – heads(P) = {g, e, d} P... we must go on until no new transformation is applicable. Positive reduction: delete not d from bodies

19
19 Brass et al’s method: an example I + = facts(P) = {c, f } I - = HB – heads(P) = {g, e, d } We can’t go on: ge get the WFM! a not b b not a c f not d

20
Outline Some LP definitions Brass et al’s method WFSX Coherence transformations Conclusions

21
Outline Some LP definitions Brass et al’s method WFSX Coherence transformations Conclusions

22
22 WFSX Extended LP: two negations not p“p is not known to be true” “p is known to be false” p Objective literal L is any p or. We’ll denote L s.t. = ppp Answer sets: reject stable models containing both p andp WFS Coherence problem: should imply not pp p not q q not p p WFM + = { } WFM - = { } p q

23
23 WFSX Given P we define its seminormal version P s p not q q not p p p not q, not p q not p, not q not p p P P s The well-founded model is defined now as: –Positive atoms I + = least fixpoint of s –Negative atoms I - = s (I + ) In the example, we get I + = {, q } I - = { p, }pq

24
Outline Some LP definitions Brass et al’s method WFSX Coherence transformations Conclusions

25
Outline Some LP definitions Brass et al’s method WFSX Coherence transformations Conclusions

26
26 Coherence transformations We begin redefining trivial interpretation... –I + = facts(P) = { p } –I - = HB – heads(P) = {, } ab a not b b not a b p p

27
27 Coherence transformations We begin redefining trivial interpretation... –I + = facts(P) = { p } –I - = HB – heads(P) { L | L facts(P) } = {,, } ab a not b b not a b p p p

28
28 Coherence transformations p not q q not p q p p I + = { } I - = { p } p

29
29 Coherence transformations p not q q not p q p p I + = { } I - = { p } p R Coherence reduction:delete not p from bodies Coherence Failure:delete rules with p in the body C

30
30 Coherence transformations p not q q p I + = { } I - = { } p, q N Delete rules containing not q in the body p, q

31
31 Coherence transformations Theorem 2: transformations {P,S,N,F,L,C,R} are sound w.r.t. WFSX Theorem 3: Let W be the WFM under WFS: (i) if W contradictory (p, p W + ) then P contradictory in WFSX (ii) the WFM under WFSX contains more or equal info than W The converse of (i) does not hold... Corollary: when WFS leads to complete (and not contradictory) WFM it coincides with WFSX a not a a

32
32 Coherence transformations Theorem 4 (main result) Given P... P' where x { P, S, N, F, L, C, R } P' is the final program (free of contradictory facts) The trivial interpretation of P' is the WFM of P under WFSX. xx

33
Outline Some LP definitions Brass et al’s method WFSX Coherence transformations Conclusions

34
Outline Some LP definitions Brass et al’s method WFSX Coherence transformations Conclusions

35
35 Conclusions We added two natural transformations w.r.t. coherence: "whenever L founded, L unfounded" Used and implemented for applying WFSX to causal theories of actions [Cabalar01] Can be used as slight efficiency improvement for answer sets? Explore a new semantics: Fitting's + coherence transformations

Similar presentations

OK

ASP vs. Prolog like programming ASP is adequate for: –NP-complete problems –situation where the whole program is relevant for the problem at hands èIf.

ASP vs. Prolog like programming ASP is adequate for: –NP-complete problems –situation where the whole program is relevant for the problem at hands èIf.

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on electric current and circuits Download ppt on civil disobedience movement law Ppt on depth first search tree Ppt on peak load pricing examples Ppt on pf and esi Ppt on artificial intelligence in medicine Ppt on acid-base titration lab Ppt on shell scripting language Ppt on sports day high school Ppt online shopping project in java