Skip to main content

Merging Logic Programs under Answer Set Semantics

  • Conference paper
Logic Programming (ICLP 2009)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 5649))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This paper considers a semantic approach for merging logic programs under answer set semantics. Given logic programs P 1, ..., P n , the goal is to provide characterisations of the merging of these programs. Our formal techniques are based on notions of relative distance between the underlying SE models of the logic programs. Two approaches are examined. The first informally selects those models of the programs that vary the least from the models of the other programs. The second approach informally selects those models of a program P 0 that are closest to the models of programs P 1, ..., P n . P 0 can be thought of as analogous to a set of database integrity constraints. We examine formal properties of these operators and give encodings for computing the mergings of a multiset of logic programs within the same logic programming framework. As a by-product, we provide a complexity analysis revealing that our operators do not increase the complexity of the base formalism.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhang, Y., Foo, N.: Updating logic programs. In: ECAI 1998, pp. 403–407. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alferes, J., Leite, J., Pereira, L., Przymusinska, H., Przymusinski, T.: Dynamic updates of non-monotonic knowledge bases. Journal of Logic Programming 45(1–3), 43–70 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Leite, J.: Evolving Knowledge Bases: Specification and Semantics. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2003)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Inoue, K., Sakama, C.: Updating extended logic programs through abduction. In: Gelfond, M., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G. (eds.) LPNMR 1999. LNCS, vol. 1730, pp. 147–161. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Eiter, T., Fink, M., Sabbatini, G., Tompits, H.: On properties of update sequences based on causal rejection. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 2(6), 711–767 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Delgrande, J., Schaub, T., Tompits, H.: A preference-based framework for updating logic programs. In: Baral, C., Brewka, G., Schlipf, J. (eds.) LPNMR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4483, pp. 71–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Delgrande, J., Schaub, T., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: Belief revision of logic programs under answer set semantics. In: KR 2008, pp. 411–421. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Turner, H.: Strong equivalence made easy: Nested expressions and weight constraints. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3(4-5), 609–622 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Lifschitz, V., Pearce, D., Valverde, A.: Strongly equivalent logic programs. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(4), 526–541 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Liberatore, P., Schaerf, M.: Arbitration (or how to merge knowledge bases). IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 10(1), 76–90 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Konieczny, S., Pino Pérez, R.: Merging information under constraints: A logical framework. Journal of Logic and Computation 12(5), 773–808 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Lifschitz, V., Woo, T.: Answer sets in general nonmonotonic reasoning (preliminary report). In: KR 1992, pp. 603–614. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Eiter, T., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: On solution correspondences in answer set programming. In: IJCAI 2005, pp. 97–102. Professional Book Center (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cabalar, P., Ferraris, P.: Propositional theories are strongly equivalent to logic programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 7(6), 745–759 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Baral, C., Kraus, S., Minker, J.: Combining multiple knowledge bases. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 3, 208–220 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Buccafurri, F., Gottlob, G.: Multiagent compromises, joint fixpoints, and stable models. In: Kakas, A.C., Sadri, F. (eds.) Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. LNCS, vol. 2407, pp. 561–585. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Sakama, C., Inoue, K.: Coordination in answer set programming. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 9, 1–30 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Baral, C., Kraus, S., Minker, J., Subrahmanian, V.: Combining multiple knowledge bases consisting of first order theories. Computational Intelligence 8(1), 45–71 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Revesz, P.: On the semantics of theory change: Arbitration between old and new information. In: ACM Principles of Database Systems, pp. 71–82 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lin, J., Mendelzon, A.: Knowledge base merging by majority. In: Dynamic Worlds: From the Frame Problem to Knowledge Management, pp. 195–218. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1999)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Konieczny, S., Lang, J., Marquis, P.: Distance-based merging: A general framework and some complexity results. In: KR 2002, pp. 97–108 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Meyer, T.: On the semantics of combination operations. Journal of Applied Nonclassical Logics 11(1-2), 59–84 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Spohn, W.: Ordinal conditional functions: A dynamic theory of epistemic states. In: Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and Statistics, pp. 105–134. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1988)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Booth, R.: Social contraction and belief negotiation. In: KR 2002, pp. 375–384 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Kaci, S., Prade, H.: Possibilistic merging and distance-based fusion of propositional information. Annals of Mathematics and AI 34(1-3), 217–252 (2003)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Delgrande, J., Schaub, T., Tompits, H., Woltran, S. (2009). Merging Logic Programs under Answer Set Semantics. In: Hill, P.M., Warren, D.S. (eds) Logic Programming. ICLP 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5649. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02846-5_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02846-5_17

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-02845-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-02846-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics