We propose a new declarative semantics for logic programs with negation. Its formulation is quite simple; at the same time, it is more general than the iterated fixed point semantics for stratied programs, and is applicable to some useful programs that are not stratified.

Abstract not found

The idea of circumscription can be explained on a simple example. We would like to represent information about the locations of blocks in a blocks world, using the "default":

A novel logic program like language, weight constraint rules, is developed for answer set programming purposes. It generalizes normal logic programs by allowing weight constraints in place of literals to represent, e.g., cardinality and resource constraints and by providing optimization capabilities. A declarative semantics is developed which extends the stable model semantics of normal programs. The computational complexity of the language is shown to be similar to that of normal programs under the stable model semantics. A simple embedding of general weight constraint rules to a small subclass of the language called basic constraint rules is devised. An implementation of the language, the smodels system, is developed based on this embedding. It uses a two level architecture consisting of a front-end and a kernel language implementation. The front-end allows restricted use of variables and functions and compiles general weight constraint rules to basic constraint rules. A major part of the work is the development of an ecient search procedure for computing stable models for this kernel language. The procedure is compared with and empirically tested against satis ability checkers and an implementation of the stable model semantics. It offers a competitive implementation of the stable model semantics for normal programs and attractive performance for problems where the new types of rules provide a compact representation.

We survey here various approaches which were proposed to incorporate negation in logic programs. We concentrate on the proof-theoretic and model-theoretic issues and the relationships between them.

In this paper, we review recent work aimed at the application of declarative logic programming to knowledge representation in artificial intelligence. We consider exten- sions of the language of definite logic programs by classical (strong) negation, disjunc- tion, and some modal operators and show how each of the added features extends the representational power of the language.

We describe a novel logic, called HiLog, and show that it provides a more suitable basis for logic programming than does traditional predicate logic. HiLog has a higher-order syntax and allows arbitrary terms to appear in places where predicates, functions and atomic formulas occur in predicate calculus. But its semantics is first-order and admits a sound and complete proof procedure. Applications of HiLog are discussed, including DCG grammars, higher-order and modular logic programming, and deductive databases.

The alternating fixpoint of a logic program with negation is defined constructively. The underlying idea is monotonically to build up a set of negative conclusions until the least fixpoint is reached, using a transformation related to the one that defines stable models. From a fixed set of negative conclusions, the positive conclusions follow (without deriving any further negative ones), by traditional Horn clause semantics. The union of positive and negative conclusions is called the alternating xpoint partial model. The name "alternating" was chosen because the transformation runs in two passes; the first pass transforms an underestimate of the set of negative conclusions into an (intermediate) overestimate; the second pass transforms the overestimate into a new underestimate; the composition of the two passes is monotonic. The principal contributions of this work are (1) that the alternating fixpoint partial model is identical to the well-founded partial model, and (2) that alternating xpoint logic is at least as expressive as xpoint logic on all structures. Also, on finite structures, fixpoint logic is as expressive as alternating fixpoint logic.

Most known computational approaches to reasoning have problems when facing inconsistency, so they assume that a given logical system is consistent. Unfortunately, the latter is difficult to verify and very often is not true. It may happen that addition of data to a large system makes it inconsistent, and hence destroys the vast amount of meaningful information. We present a logic, called APC (annotated predicate calculus; cf. annotated logic programs of [3], that treats any set of clauses, either consistent or not, in a uniform way. In this logic, consequences of a contradiction are not nearly as damaging as in the standard predicate calculus, and meaningful information can still be extracted from an inconsistent set of formulae. APC has a resolution-based sound and complete proof procedure. We also introduce a novel notion of "epistemic entailment" and show its importance for investigating inconsistency in predicate calculus as well as its application to nonmonotonic reasoning. Most importantly, our claim that a logical theory is an adequate model of human perception of inconsistency, is actually backed by rigorous arguments.

We study the expressive powers of two semantics for deductive databases and logic programming: the well-founded semantics and the stable semantics. We compare them especially to two older semantics, the two-valued and three-valued program completion semantics. We identify the expressive power of the stable semantics, and in fairly general circumstances that of the well-founded semantics. In particular, over infinite Herbrand universes, the four semantics all have the same expressive power. We discuss a feature of certain logic programming semantics, which we call the Principle of Stratification, a feature allowing a program to be built easily in modules. The three-valued program completion and well-founded semantics satisfy this principle. Over infinite Herbrand models, we consider a notion of translatability between the three-valued program completion and well-founded semantics which is in a sense uniform in the strata. In this sense of uniform translatability we show the well-founded semantics to be more expressive than the three-valued program completion. The proof is a corollary of our result that over non-Herbrand infinite models, the well-founded semantics is more expressive than the three-valued program completion semantics. 1