Eshghi, K. and R. A. Kowalski: 1989, `Abduction compared with negation by failure'. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP '89). pp. 234--254.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....the logistics domain. 1 Introduction Logic programming with answer sets [Gelfond and Lifschitz, 1988] or partial stable models [Przymusinski, 1990] has been adopted as a framework for abduction, and a number of formalisms and top down query answering procedures have been proposed [Dung, 1991; Eshghi and Kowalski, 1989; Kakas and Mancarella, 1990; Kakas et al. 2000; Lin and You, 2001; Satoh and Iwayama, 1992] The question we shall address in this paper is the following. With a sound and complete procedure for abduction, suppose we have computed explanations (conveniently represented as a disjunction) Es = E ....

K. Eshghi and R.A. Kowalski. Abduction compared with negation by failure. In Proc. 6th Int'l Conference on Logic Programming, pages 234--254. MIT Press, 1989.

....implementation of the monotonic part of the language are hidden in the definition of the procedure support, and they can be ignored by the abductive procedure. The abductive procedure is defined in the style of Eshghi and Kowalski s abductive procedure for logic programs with negation as failure [14], and is similar to the procedures proposed in [24] to compute the acceptability semantics. In this work, for the sake of brevity, we report only the support procedure, that was modified in the following way, while the abductive procedure remained unchanged (see [6] Section 4) vs F with ....

K. Eshghi and R. Kowalski. Abduction compared with negation by failure. In Proc. 6th ICLP'89, pages 234--254, Lisbon, 1989.

....definite Horn program with no negation (negation as failure) appearing in the body of the rules of P . However, this condition is not restrictive since negation as failure in a non definite logic program can be treated through abduction in an associated abductive theory whose program is definite [EK89] As a knowledge representation framework, when we represent a problem in ALP via an abductive theory T , we generally assume that the abducible predicates in A carry all the incompleteness of the program P in modelling the external problem domain in the sense that if we (could) complete the ....

....As we will see in the next sections, in the Abductive Concept Learning framework and system, deductive entailment is replaced by the abductive entailment as the coverage relation. Thus the deductive SLD (and SLDNF) proof procedures of Logic Programming are replaced by abductive proof procedures [EK89, KM90a, KM90c, DDS92, SI92] of ALP. Any abductive procedure satisfying the following notion of abductive derivability is suitable. Definition 39 (Abductive derivability) Given an abductive theory T = hP; A; Ii, a goal G and an initial strong abductive explanation Delta i , we say that a ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

K. Eshghi and R. A. Kowalski. Abduction compared with Negation by Failure. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming, 1989. 124

.... and other combinatorial problems, in expressing the frame axioms, in reasoning with actions and causality, and in representing the history of a plan [21, 26, 27] In the context of logic programming, abduction has been investigated from both prooftheoretic and model theoretic perspectives (e.g. [7, 14, 15, 16, 34]) One of the most followed definitions of abduction in logic programming is that of Kakas and Mancarella s generalized stable model semantics [15] Given a logic program P , a set A of atoms standing for abducibles, and a query q, Kakas and Mancarella defined an abductive explanation S to be a ....

....the differences between the proof methods for 27 consequence finding and those for brave reasoning lie in the correct handling of loops in the latter in order to capture each of the intended models. Our work is closely related to another abductive procedure, the Eshghi Kowalski procedure (EKP) [7] (also see [6] which is sound and complete for ground programs under the finite failure three valued stable model semantics in which loops causing infinite failure are modeled by the truth value undefined [12] It is known that with an appropriate handling of positive loops (distinguished as ....

K. Eshghi and R.A. Kowalski. Abduction compared with negation by failure. In Proc. 6th Int'l Conference on Logic Programming, pages 234--254. MIT Press, 1989.

.... of the logic L ( S0 ) is given through a standard Kripke semantics with inclusion properties among the accessibility relations [1] The abductive semantics builds on monotonic logic L ( S0 ) and is de ned in the style of Eshghi and Kowalski s abductive semantics for negation as failure [16]. We de ne a new set of atomic propositions of the form M[a 1 ] a 2 ] a m ]F and we take them as being abducibles. Their meaning is that the epistemic uent F can be assumed to hold in the state obtained by executing primitive actions a 1 ; a 2 ; am . Each abducible can be ....

....in order to verify that the complement of the epistemic uent F is not made true in the state resulting from an action execution, while in the modal theory we adopted an abductive characterization to deal with persistency. However, it is well studied how to give an abductive semantics for NAF [16]. The rst part of the proof procedure, denoted by ps and presented in Fig. 2, deals with the execution of complex actions, sensing actions, primitive actions and test actions. The proof procedure reduces the complex actions in the query to a sequence of primitive actions and test actions, ....

K. Eshghi and R. Kowalski. Abduction compared with Negation by Failure. In Proc. of ICLP '89, Lisbon, 1989. The MIT Press.

....that solves in a alternative manner non deterministic scenarios allowing the use of non ground temporal components. In the meta logical implementation of a prototype for FLP we provided an abductive proof procedure for the above abductive semantics based on the well known work of Esghi Kowalski [EK89] augmented with a restricted and ad hoc tailored form of constructive negation for CLP languages [Dry95] in order to allow abduction of temporal constraints upon the duration of partially speci ed action instances. A rst prototype of this system has been successfully implemented in SICStus ....

K. Eshghi and R. Kowalski. Abduction compared with negation by failure. In G. Levi and M. Martelli, editors, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference and 5th Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 234254. MIT Press, 1989.

....entire well founded models. Since we have restricted our proof procedure to propositional logic programs, an important direction of future research is to lift it to the first order case and, then, to assess the resulting calculus in comparison with existing extensions of SLDNF resolution, like [10] (whose adequacy wrt. the argumentation based approach [9] has been shown) or SLS resolution [20] ....

K. Eshghi and R. A. Kowalski. Abduction compared with negation by failure. In G. Levi and M. Martelli, ed.'s, Proc. of ICLP, p. 234--255, Lisbon, Portugal, 1989. MIT Press.

....[3] 35] View maintenance algorithms (storing the result of a query and keeping it up to date with the database) have been less studied but are rather simple generalizations of integrity enforcement. Some work has been done on updating views in deductive databases, esp. by abductive reasoning [18], 30] The notion of views gives a flexible way for defining access paths with the access path as rule body and the extension of the rule head as the index. It has been demonstrated that deductive rules are suitable for establishing the access to external relational and heterogenous databases. ....

K. Eshghi and R.A. Kowalski, "Abduction compared with negation by failure", in Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, (Levi G., Martelli M. eds.), Lisbon, MIT Press, pp. 234--254, 1989.

....and application . Tacitus lite also includes a fixed set of integrity constraints. A knowledge base T [ satisfies an integrity constraint 2 I iff T [ is consistent . The first constraint is : p p ] where p means the opposite of p, following the approach described in [7, 5]. For example, if literal p stands for velocity of pumpkin is constant , then p is velocity of pumpkin is non constant . In other words, the abductive explanation satisfies this constraint iff Belief revision in Bayesian networks can be accurately modeled by cost based abduction [11] ....

K. Eshghi and R. A. Kowalski. Abduction compared with negation by failure. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP '89), pages 234--254, 1989.

....where agents are logic based and capable to perform abductive reasoning. ALIAS agents can also be coordinated following two schemes: collaboration and competition. Abduction has been widely recognized as a powerful mechanism for hypothetical reasoning in presence of incomplete knowledge [5, 7, 9]. Abduction is generally understood as reasoning from e#ects to causes, and also captures other important issues such as reasoning with defaults and beliefs (see for instance [11, 14] For these reasons abduction is often applied to diagnosis. The multi agent approach we are proposing relies on ....

....last night, sprinkler was on. Let predicates rained last night and sprinkler was on be abducible. The observation shoes are wet is explained by two (minimal) sets of sentences, respectively: rained last night, not sprinkler was on sprinkler was on, not rained last night According to [7], negation as default, possibly occurring in clause bodies, can be recovered into abduction by replacing negated literals of the form not a with a new positive, abducible atom not a and by adding the integrity constraint a, not a to IC. We suppose that each integrity constraint in IC i of an ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

K. Eshgi and R. A. Kowalski. Abduction compared with negation by failure. In G. Levi and M. Martelli, editors, Proc. 6th International Conference on Logic Programming, 234. MIT Press, 1989.

....adaptation, etc. In particular, intelligent agents require both reasoning capabilities and social abilities, which make interaction and coordination among agents possible. Abduction has been widely recognized as a powerful mechanism for hypothetical reasoning in presence of incomplete knowledge [6, 9, 15]: it is generally understood as reasoning from e ects to causes, and also captures other important issues such as reasoning with defaults and beliefs (see for instance [17, 20] For these reasons, abduction has been already extensively applied to legal reasoning, especially as an explanatory ....

....and peyer killed knott cannot be assumed both true at the same time. The observation s body is therefore explained by two (minimal) sets of sentences, 1 and 2 : 1 = fsomeone else killed knott; not peyer killed knottg and 2 = fpeyer killed knott; not someone else killed knottg According to [9], negation as default, possibly occurring in clause bodies, can be recovered into abduction by replacing negated literals of the form not a with a new Peyer is the name of the main defendant in the trial. 5 positive, abducible atom not a and by adding the integrity constraint a; not a to ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

K. Eshgi and R. A. Kowalski. Abduction compared with negation by failure. In G. Levi and M. Martelli, editors, Proceedings 6th International Conference on Logic Programming, page 234. MIT Press, 1989.

....fact, abduction plays an important role in much of human inference. It is relevant to our everyday commonsense reasoning as well as in many expert problem solving tasks. Several efforts have been devoted recently to extend non disjunctive logic programming to perform abductive reasoning, such as [14, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 42, 43]. Abduction with logic programs can be used in various fields of AI, including default reasoning, diagnosis and legal reasoning. Two key forms of approaches to abduction are well known in the community of logic programming: consistency based abduction and argumentation based abduction. The first ....

....are well known in the community of logic programming: consistency based abduction and argumentation based abduction. The first exploits a special logical consistency and defines an acceptable hypothesis as the corresponding consistent set (some other constraints might also be applied) such as [19, 23]; the latter depends on an attack relation among hypotheses and acceptable hypotheses are defined through a kind of stability conditions [14, 17, 24, 42, 43] We believe that the argumentation based abduction allows an easier and more direct representation for reasoning of law and related ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Eshghi,K. and Kowalski,R., Abduction Compared with Negation by Failure, in: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming, MIT Press, pp.234-255, 1989.

No context found.

K. Eshghi, R.A. Kowalski. Abduction compared with Negation by Failure. Proc. ICLP'89, pp. 234-254. MIT Press, 1989.

No context found.

Eshghi, K. and R. A. Kowalski: 1989, `Abduction compared with negation by failure'. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP '89). pp. 234--254.

No context found.

K. Eshghi and R.A. Kowalski. Abduction compared with negation by failure. In G. Levi and M. Martelli, editors, Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming ICLP89, pages 234--254. The MIT Press, 1989.

No context found.

K. Eshghi and R.A. Kowalski. Abduction compared with negation by failure. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 234--254. MIT Press, 1989.

No context found.

K. Eshghi and R.A. Kowalski. Abduction compared with negation by failure. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 234--254. MIT Press, 1989.

No context found.

K. Eshghi and R. Kowalski. Abduction compared with negation by failure. In Proc. 6th ICLP'89, pages 234--254, Lisbon, 1989.

No context found.

K. Eshgi and R. A. Kowalski. Abduction compared with negation by failure. In G. Levi and M. Martelli, editors, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 234--255. MIT Press, 1989.

No context found.

Eshghi, K., Kowalski, R.A.: Abduction compared with negation by failure. In: Proc. 6th ICLP, MIT Press (1989) 234--255

No context found.

Eshghi, K., Kowalski, R.A.: Abduction compared with negation by failure. In Levi, G., Martelli, M., eds.: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming, MIT Press (1989) 234--255

No context found.

K. Eshghi and R. Kowalski. Abduction compared with negation by failure. In 6th Int. Conf. on LP. MIT Press, 1989.

No context found.

K. Eshghi and R. A. Kowalski. Abduction compared with negation by failure. In G. Levi and M. Martelli, editors, Proc. ICLP-1989. MIT Press, 1989.

No context found.

K. Eshghi and R.A. Kowalski. Abduction compared with negation by failure. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP-89), pages 234--254, 1989.

No context found.

Eshghi, K., Kowalski, R.A., Abduction Compared with Negation by Failure. Logic Programming, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference, MIT Press pp. 234-- 254, 1989.

First 50 documents  Next 50

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC