@article{Schaub1998, author = {Schaub, Torsten}, title = {The family of default logics}, year = {1998}, language = {en} } @article{DelgrandeSchaubTompitsetal.2013, author = {Delgrande, James and Schaub, Torsten and Tompits, Hans and Woltran, Stefan}, title = {A model-theoretic approach to belief change in answer set programming}, series = {ACM transactions on computational logic}, volume = {14}, journal = {ACM transactions on computational logic}, number = {2}, publisher = {Association for Computing Machinery}, address = {New York}, issn = {1529-3785}, doi = {10.1145/2480759.2480766}, pages = {46}, year = {2013}, abstract = {We address the problem of belief change in (nonmonotonic) logic programming under answer set semantics. Our formal techniques are analogous to those of distance-based belief revision in propositional logic. In particular, we build upon the model theory of logic programs furnished by SE interpretations, where an SE interpretation is a model of a logic program in the same way that a classical interpretation is a model of a propositional formula. Hence we extend techniques from the area of belief revision based on distance between models to belief change in logic programs. We first consider belief revision: for logic programs P and Q, the goal is to determine a program R that corresponds to the revision of P by Q, denoted P * Q. We investigate several operators, including (logic program) expansion and two revision operators based on the distance between the SE models of logic programs. It proves to be the case that expansion is an interesting operator in its own right, unlike in classical belief revision where it is relatively uninteresting. Expansion and revision are shown to satisfy a suite of interesting properties; in particular, our revision operators satisfy all or nearly all of the AGM postulates for revision. We next consider approaches for merging a set of logic programs, P-1,...,P-n. Again, our formal techniques are based on notions of relative distance between the SE models of the logic programs. Two approaches are examined. The first informally selects for each program P-i those models of P-i that vary the least from 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. In this case, P-0 can be thought of as a set of database integrity constraints. We examine these operators with regards to how they satisfy relevant postulate sets. Last, we present encodings for computing the revision as well as the merging of logic programs within the same logic programming framework. This gives rise to a direct implementation of our approach in terms of off-the-shelf answer set solvers. These encodings also reflect the fact that our change operators do not increase the complexity of the base formalism.}, language = {en} } @article{DelgrandeSchaubTompits2007, author = {Delgrande, James Patrick and Schaub, Torsten and Tompits, Hans}, title = {A general framework for expressing preferences in causal reasoning and planning}, issn = {0955-792X}, doi = {10.1093/logcom/exm046}, year = {2007}, abstract = {We consider the problem of representing arbitrary preferences in causal reasoning and planning systems. In planning, a preference may be seen as a goal or constraint that is desirable, but not necessary, to satisfy. To begin, we define a very general query language for histories, or interleaved sequences of world states and actions. Based on this, we specify a second language in which preferences are defined. A single preference defines a binary relation on histories, indicating that one history is preferred to the other. From this, one can define global preference orderings on the set of histories, the maximal elements of which are the preferred histories. The approach is very general and flexible; thus it constitutes a base language in terms of which higher-level preferences may be defined. To this end, we investigate two fundamental types of preferences that we call choice and temporal preferences. We consider concrete strategies for these types of preferences and encode them in terms of our framework. We suggest how to express aggregates in the approach, allowing, e.g. the expression of a preference for histories with lowest total action costs. Last, our approach can be used to express other approaches and so serves as a common framework in which such approaches can be expressed and compared. We illustrate this by indicating how an approach due to Son and Pontelli can be encoded in our approach, as well as the language PDDL3.}, language = {en} } @article{GebserSchaubThieleetal.2011, author = {Gebser, Martin and Schaub, Torsten and Thiele, Sven and Veber, Philippe}, title = {Detecting inconsistencies in large biological networks with answer set programming}, series = {Theory and practice of logic programming}, volume = {11}, journal = {Theory and practice of logic programming}, number = {5-6}, publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press}, address = {New York}, issn = {1471-0684}, doi = {10.1017/S1471068410000554}, pages = {323 -- 360}, year = {2011}, abstract = {We introduce an approach to detecting inconsistencies in large biological networks by using answer set programming. To this end, we build upon a recently proposed notion of consistency between biochemical/genetic reactions and high-throughput profiles of cell activity. We then present an approach based on answer set programming to check the consistency of large-scale data sets. Moreover, we extend this methodology to provide explanations for inconsistencies by determining minimal representations of conflicts. In practice, this can be used to identify unreliable data or to indicate missing reactions.}, language = {en} } @article{GebserKaminskiSchaub2011, author = {Gebser, Martin and Kaminski, Roland and Schaub, Torsten}, title = {Complex optimization in answer set programming}, series = {Theory and practice of logic programming}, volume = {11}, journal = {Theory and practice of logic programming}, number = {3}, publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press}, address = {New York}, issn = {1471-0684}, doi = {10.1017/S1471068411000329}, pages = {821 -- 839}, year = {2011}, abstract = {Preference handling and optimization are indispensable means for addressing nontrivial applications in Answer Set Programming (ASP). However, their implementation becomes difficult whenever they bring about a significant increase in computational complexity. As a consequence, existing ASP systems do not offer complex optimization capacities, supporting, for instance, inclusion-based minimization or Pareto efficiency. Rather, such complex criteria are typically addressed by resorting to dedicated modeling techniques, like saturation. Unlike the ease of common ASP modeling, however, these techniques are rather involved and hardly usable by ASP laymen. We address this problem by developing a general implementation technique by means of meta-prpogramming, thus reusing existing ASP systems to capture various forms of qualitative preferences among answer sets. In this way, complex preferences and optimization capacities become readily available for ASP applications.}, language = {en} } @article{GebserGharibMerceretal.2009, author = {Gebser, Martin and Gharib, Mona and Mercer, Robert E. and Schaub, Torsten}, title = {Monotonic answer set programming}, issn = {0955-792X}, doi = {10.1093/logcom/exn040}, year = {2009}, abstract = {Answer set programming (ASP) does not allow for incrementally constructing answer sets or locally validating constructions like proofs by only looking at a part of the given program. In this article, we elaborate upon an alternative approach to ASP that allows for incremental constructions. Our approach draws its basic intuitions from the area of default logics. We investigate the feasibility of the concept of semi-monotonicity known from default logics as a basis of incrementality. On the one hand, every logic program has at least one answer set in our alternative setting, which moreover can be constructed incrementally based on generating rules. On the other hand, the approach may produce answer sets lacking characteristic properties of standard answer sets, such as being a model of the given program. We show how integrity constraints can be used to re-establish such properties, even up to correspondence with standard answer sets. Furthermore, we develop an SLD-like proof procedure for our incremental approach to ASP, which allows for query-oriented computations. Also, we provide a characterization of our definition of answer sets via a modification of Clarks completion. Based on this notion of program completion, we present an algorithm for computing the answer sets of a logic program in our approach.}, language = {en} } @article{GebserKaufmannSchaub2012, author = {Gebser, Martin and Kaufmann, Benjamin and Schaub, Torsten}, title = {Multi-threaded ASP solving with clasp}, series = {Theory and practice of logic programming}, volume = {12}, journal = {Theory and practice of logic programming}, number = {8}, publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press}, address = {New York}, issn = {1471-0684}, doi = {10.1017/S1471068412000166}, pages = {525 -- 545}, year = {2012}, abstract = {We present the new multi-threaded version of the state-of-the-art answer set solver clasp. We detail its component and communication architecture and illustrate how they support the principal functionalities of clasp. Also, we provide some insights into the data representation used for different constraint types handled by clasp. All this is accompanied by an extensive experimental analysis of the major features related to multi-threading in clasp.}, language = {en} } @article{HermenegildoSchaub2010, author = {Hermenegildo, Manuel and Schaub, Torsten}, title = {Introduction to the technical communications of the 26th International Conference on Logic Programming : special issue}, issn = {1471-0684}, doi = {10.1017/S1471068410000153}, year = {2010}, language = {en} } @article{DelgrandeLiuSchaubetal.2007, author = {Delgrande, James Patrick and Liu, Daphne H. and Schaub, Torsten and Thiele, Sven}, title = {COBA 2.0 : a consistency-based belief change system}, year = {2007}, language = {en} } @article{GharibSchaubMercer2007, author = {Gharib, Mona and Schaub, Torsten and Mercer, Robert E.}, title = {Incremental answer set programming : a preliminary report}, year = {2007}, language = {en} }