Suppose one is given a description of a system, together with an observation of the system's behaviour which conflicts with the way the system is meant to behave. The diagnostic problem is to determine those components of the system which, when assumed to be functioning abnormally, will explain the discrepancy between the observed and correct system behaviour. We propose a general theory for this problem. The theory requires only that the system be described in a suitable logic. Moreover, there are many such suitable logics, e.g. first-order, temporal, dynamic, etc. As a result, the theory accommodates diagnostic reasoning in a wide variety of practical settings, including digital and analogue circuits, medicine, and database updates. The theory leads to an algorithm for computing all diagnoses, and to various results concerning principles of measurement for discriminating among competing diagnoses. Finally, the theory reveals close connections between diagnostic reasoning and nonmonotonic reasoning.

An important limitation of traditional logic programming as a knowledge representation tool, in comparison with classical logic, is that logic programming does not allow us to deal directly with incomplete information. In order to overcome this limitation, we extend the class of general logic programs by including classical negation, in addition to negation-as-failure. The semantics of such extended programs is based on the method of stable models. The concept of a disjunctive database can be extended in a similar way. We show that some facts of commonsense knowledge can be represented by logic programs and disjunctive databases more easily when classical negation is available. Computationally, classical negation can be eliminated from extended programs by a simple preprocessor. Extended programs are identical to a special case of default theories in the sense of Reiter. 1

We represent properties of actions in a logic programming language that uses both classical negation and negation as failure. The method is applicable to temporal projection problems with incomplete information, as well as to reasoning about the past. It is proved to be sound relative to a semantics of action based on states and transition functions. 1 Introduction This paper extends the work of Eshghi and Kowalski [6], Evans [7] and Apt and Bezem [1] on representing properties of actions in logic programming languages with negation as failure. Our goal is to overcome some of the limitations of the earlier work. The existing formalizations of action in logic programming are adequate for only the simplest kind of temporal reasoning---"temporal projection." In a temporal projection problem, we are given a description of the initial state of the world, and use properties of actions to determine what the world will look like after a series of actions is performed. Moreover, the existing ...

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.

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":

In many cases, a logic program can be divided into two parts, so that one of them, the \bottom " part, does not refer to the predicates de ned in the \top " part. The \bottom " rules can be used then for the evaluation of the predicates that they de ne, and the computed values can be used to simplify the \top " de nitions. We discuss this idea of splitting a program in the context of the answer set semantics. The main theorem shows how computing the answer sets for a program can be simpli ed when the program is split into parts. The programs covered by the theorem may use both negation as failure and classical negation, and their rules may have disjunctive heads. The usefulness of the concept of splitting for the investigation of answer sets is illustrated by several applications. First, we show that a conservative extension theorem by Gelfond and Przymusinska and a theorem on the closed world assumption by Gelfond and Lifschitz are easy consequences of the splitting theorem. Second, (locally) strati ed programs are shown to have a simple characterization in terms of splitting. The existence and uniqueness of an answer set for such a program can be easily derived from this characterization. Third, we relate the idea of splitting to the notion of order-consistency. 1

Reasoning can lead not only to the adoption of beliefs, but also to the retraction of beliefs. In philosophy, this is described by saying that reasoning is defeasible. My ultimate objective is the construction of a general theory of reasoning and its implementation in an automated reasoner capable of both deductive and defeasible reasoning. The resulting system is named “OSCAR. ” This article addresses some of the theoretical underpinnings of OSCAR. This article extends my earlier theory in two directions. First, it addresses the question of what the criteria of adequacy should be for a defeasible reasoner. Second, it extends the theory to accommodate reasons of varying strengths.

We pursue the perspective of Reiter that in the situation calculus one can formalize primitive, determinate actions with axioms which, among others, include two disjoint sets: a set of successor state axioms and a set of action precondition axioms. We posed ourselves the problem of automatically generating successor state axioms, given only a set of effect axioms and a set of state constraints. This is a special version of what has been traditionally called the ramification problem. To our surprise, we found that there are state constraints whose role is not to yield indirect effects of actions. Rather, they are implicit axioms about action preconditions. As such, they are intimately related to the classical qualification problem. We also discovered that other kinds of state constraints arise; these are related to the formalization of strategic or control information. This paper is devoted to describing our results along these lines, focusing on ramification and qualification state con...

Abstract not found

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.