004 Datenverarbeitung; Informatik
Refine
Document Type
- Article (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Postprint (1)
Language
- English (3)
Keywords
Institute
In this paper we consider a simple syntactic extension of Answer Set Programming (ASP) for dealing with (nested) existential quantifiers and double negation in the rule bodies, in a close way to the recent proposal RASPL-1. The semantics for this extension just resorts to Equilibrium Logic (or, equivalently, to the General Theory of Stable Models), which provides a logic-programming interpretation for any arbitrary theory in the syntax of Predicate Calculus. We present a translation of this syntactic class into standard logic programs with variables (either disjunctive or normal, depending on the input rule heads), as those allowed by current ASP solvers. The translation relies on the introduction of auxiliary predicates and the main result shows that it preserves strong equivalence modulo the original signature.
A common feature in Answer Set Programming is the use of a second negation, stronger than default negation and sometimes called explicit, strong or classical negation. This explicit negation is normally used in front of atoms, rather than allowing its use as a regular operator. In this paper we consider the arbitrary combination of explicit negation with nested expressions, as those defined by Lifschitz, Tang and Turner. We extend the concept of reduct for this new syntax and then prove that it can be captured by an extension of Equilibrium Logic with this second negation. We study some properties of this variant and compare to the already known combination of Equilibrium Logic with Nelson's strong negation.
Epistemic logic programs constitute an extension of the stable model semantics to deal with new constructs called subjective literals. Informally speaking, a subjective literal allows checking whether some objective literal is true in all or some stable models. As it can be imagined, the associated semantics has proved to be non-trivial, since the truth of subjective literals may interfere with the set of stable models it is supposed to query. As a consequence, no clear agreement has been reached and different semantic proposals have been made in the literature. Unfortunately, comparison among these proposals has been limited to a study of their effect on individual examples, rather than identifying general properties to be checked. In this paper, we propose an extension of the well-known splitting property for logic programs to the epistemic case. We formally define when an arbitrary semantics satisfies the epistemic splitting property and examine some of the consequences that can be derived from that, including its relation to conformant planning and to epistemic constraints. Interestingly, we prove (through counterexamples) that most of the existing approaches fail to fulfill the epistemic splitting property, except the original semantics proposed by Gelfond 1991 and a recent proposal by the authors, called Founded Autoepistemic Equilibrium Logic.