Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:53:04.594Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Semantics for Possibilistic Disjunctive Programs*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2011

JUAN CARLOS NIEVES ,
MAURICIO OSORIO  and
ULISES CORTÉS
JUAN CARLOS NIEVES
Affiliation:
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Software Department (LSI), c/Jordi Girona 1-3, E-08034, Barcelona, Spain (e-mail: [email protected])
MAURICIO OSORIO
Affiliation:
Universidad de las Américas - Puebla, CENTIA, Sta. Catarina Mártir, Cholula, Puebla, 72820México (e-mail: [email protected])
ULISES CORTÉS
Affiliation:
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Software Department (LSI), c/Jordi Girona 1-3, E-08034, Barcelona, Spain (e-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, a possibilistic disjunctive logic programming approach for modeling uncertain, incomplete, and inconsistent information is defined. This approach introduces the use of possibilistic disjunctive clauses, which are able to capture incomplete information and states of a knowledge base at the same time. By considering a possibilistic logic program as a possibilistic logic theory, a construction of a possibilistic logic programming semantic based on answer sets and the proof theory of possibilistic logic is defined. It shows that this possibilistic semantics for disjunctive logic programs can be characterized by a fixed-point operator. It is also shown that the suggested possibilistic semantics can be computed by a resolution algorithm and the consideration of optimal refutations from a possibilistic logic theory. In order to manage inconsistent possibilistic logic programs, a preference criterion between inconsistent possibilistic models is defined. In addition, the approach of cuts for restoring consistency of an inconsistent possibilistic knowledge base is adopted. The approach is illustrated in a medical scenario.

Keywords

answer set programminguncertain informationpossibilistic reasoning
Type
Regular Papers
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 33 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This is a revised and improved version of the following papers: C. Baral, G. Brewka and J. Schipf (Eds), Semantics for possibilistic disjunctive programs appeared in Ninth International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR-07), LNAI 4483; and Semantics for possibilistic disjunctive logic programs in S. Constantini and W. Watson (Eds), Answer Set Programming: Advantage in Theory and Implementation.

References

Alsinet, T., Chesñevar, C. I., Godo, L. and Simari, G. R. 2008. A logic programming framework for possibilistic argumentation: Formalization and logical properties. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 159, 10, 1208–1228.Google Scholar
Alsinet, T. and Godo, L. 2000. A complete calculus for possibilistic logic programming with fuzzy propositional variables. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. ACM Press, New York, 1–10.Google Scholar
Alsinet, T. and Godo, L. 2002. Towards an automated deduction system for first-order possibilistic logic programming with fuzzy constants. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 17, 9, 887–924.Google Scholar
Baldwin, J. F. 1987. Evidential support logic programming. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 24, 1 (October), 1–26.Google Scholar
Baral, C. 2003. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Baral, C., Gelfond, M. and Rushton, J. N. 2009. Probabilistic reasoning with answer sets. Journal of Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 9, 1, 57–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brass, S. and Dix, J. 1997. Characterizations of the disjunctive stable semantics by partial evaluation. Journal of Logic Programming 32, 3, 207–228.Google Scholar
Brass, S. and Dix, J. 1998. Characterizations of the disjunctive well-founded semantics: Confluent calculi and iterated gcwa. Journal of Automated Reasoning 20, 1, 143–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brass, S. and Dix, J. 1999. Semantics of (disjunctive) logic programs based on partial evaluation. Journal of Logic Programming 38, 3, 167–213.Google Scholar
Bueno, O. 2006. Why inconsistency is not hell: Making room for inconsistency in science. In Knowledge and Inquiry: Essays on the Pragmatism of Isaac Levi. Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Confalonieri, R., Nieves, J. C., Osorio, M. and Vázquez-Salceda, J. 2010. Possibilistic semantics for logic programs with ordered disjunction. In FoIKS. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5956. Springer, New Mexico, 133–152.Google Scholar
Davey, B. A. and Priestly, H. A. 2002. Introduction to Lattices and Order, 2nd ed.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dix, J. 1995a. A classification theory of semantics of normal logic programs: I. Strong properties. Fundamenta Informaticae 22, 3, 227–255.Google Scholar
Dix, J. 1995b. A classification theory of semantics of normal logic programs: II. Weak properties. Fundamenta Informaticae 22, 3, 257–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dix, J., Osorio, M. and Zepeda, C. 2001. A general theory of confluent rewriting systems for logic programming and its applications. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 108, 1–3, 153–188.Google Scholar
DLV, S. 1996. Vienna University of Technology. Accessed 10 October 2008. URL: http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/proj/dlv/.Google Scholar
Dubois, D., Lang, J. and Prade, H. 1991. Towards possibilistic logic programming. In International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP), Furukawa, K., Ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 581–595.Google Scholar
Dubois, D., Lang, J. and Prade, H. 1994. Possibilistic logic. In Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol. 3: Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Uncertain Reasoning, Gabbay, D., Hogger, C. J. and Robinson, J. A., Eds. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 439–513.Google Scholar
Dubois, D. and Prade, H. 2004. Possibilistic logic: A retrospective and prospective view. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 144, 1, 3–23.Google Scholar
Fitting, M. 1991. Bilattices and the semantics of logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming 11, 1 & 2, 91–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J. and Das, S. 2000. Safe and Sound: Artificial Intelligence in Hazardous Applications. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Fox, J. and Modgil, S. 2006. From arguments to decisions: Extending the Toulmin view. In Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays on Argument Analysis and Evaluation, Hitchcock, D. and Verheij, B., Eds. Springer, Netherlands, 273–287.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. 2008. Answer sets. In Handbook of Knowledge Representation. Elsevier, Maryland Heights, MO, 285–316.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In 5th Conference on Logic Programming, Kowalski, R. and Bowen, K., Eds. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1070–1080.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385.Google Scholar
Gergatsoulis, M., Rondogiannis, P. and Panayiotopoulos, T. 2001. Temporal disjunctive logic programming. New Generation Computing 19, 1, 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern-Isberner, G. and Lukasiewicz, T. 2004. Combining probabilistic logic programming with the power of maximum entropy. Artificial Intelligence 157, 1–2, 139–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kifer, M. and Subrahmanian, V. S. 1992. Theory of generalized annotated logic programming and its applications. Journal of Logic Programming 12, 3 & 4, 335–367.Google Scholar
Lakshmanan, L. V. S. 1994. An epistemic foundation for logic programming with uncertainty. In Proceedings of Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS), 89–100.Google Scholar
López-Navidad, A. and Caballero, F. 2003. Extended criteria for organ acceptance: Strategies for achieving organ safety and for increasing organ pool. Clinical Transplantation, Blackwell Munksgaard 17, 308–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
López-Navidad, A., Domingo, P. and Viedma, M. A. 1997. Professional characteristics of the transplant coordinator. In Proceedings of XVI International Congress of the Transplantation Society, vol. 29. Elsevier, Maryland Heights, MO, 1607–1613.Google Scholar
Lukasiewicz, T. 1998. Probabilistic logic programming. In 13th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (ECAI), Brighton, UK, Aug. 23–28, 388–392.Google Scholar
Lukasiewicz, T. 2001. Fixpoint characterizations for many-valued disjunctive logic programs with probabilistic semantics. In 6th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR), Vienna, Austria, 336–350.Google Scholar
Mateis, C. 2000. Quantitative disjunctive logic programming: Semantics and computation. AI Communications 13, 4, 225–248.Google Scholar
Ng, R. T. and Subrahmanian, V. S. 1992. Probabilistic logic programming. Journal of Information and Computer 101, 2, 150–201.Google Scholar
Nicolas, P., Garcia, L., Stéphan, I. and Lefèvre, C. 2006. Possibilistic uncertainty handling for answer set programming. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 47, 1–2 (June), 139–181.Google Scholar
Nieves, J. C., Osorio, M. and Cortés, U. 2007a. Semantics for possibilistic disjunctive programs. In Ninth International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR-07), Baral, C., Brewka, G. and Schlipf, J., Eds. Number 4483 in LNAI. Springer-Verlag, New York, 315–320.Google Scholar
Nieves, J. C., Osorio, M. and Cortés, U. 2007b. Semantics for possibilistic disjunctive programs. In Answer Set Programming: Advances in Theory and Implementation, Costantini, S. and Watson, R., Eds. University of Bath, Bath, UK, 271–284.Google Scholar
Nieves, J. C., Osorio, M., Cortés, U., Caballero, F. and López-Navidad, A. 2007. Reasoning about actions under uncertainty: A possibilistic approach. In Proceedings of 10th International Conference of the CCIA, Angulo, C. and Godo, L., Eds. IOS Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 11–18.Google Scholar
Osorio, M., Navarro, J. A. and Arrazola, J. 2004. Applications of intuitionistic logic in answer set programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP) 4, 3 (May), 225–354.Google Scholar
Pearce, D. 1999. Stable inference as intuitionistic validity. Logic Programming 38, 79–91.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Artalejo, M. and Romero-Díaz, C. A. 2008. Quantitative logic programming revisited. In 9th International Symposium, FLOPS, Garrigue, J. and Hermenegildo, M., Eds. LNCS, vol. 4989. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, 272–288.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. 1955. A lattice-theoretical fixpoint theorem and its applications. Pacific Journal of Mathematics 5, 2, 285–309.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. 1982. Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dalen, D. 1994. Logic and Structure, 3rd, augmented ed. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
van Emden, M. H. 1986. Quantitative deduction and its fixpoint theory. Journal of Logic Programming 3, 1, 37–53.Google Scholar
Van-Nieuwenborgh, D., Cock, M. D. and Vermeir, D. 2007. An introduction to fuzzy answer set programming. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 50, 3–4, 363–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar