Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:39:01.236Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Dynamic Consistency Checking in Goal-Directed Answer Set Programming

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2014

KYLE MARPLE
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, The University of Texas at Dallas (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected])
GOPAL GUPTA
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, The University of Texas at Dallas (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected])

Abstract

In answer set programming, inconsistencies arise when the constraints placed on a program become unsatisfiable. In this paper, we introduce a technique for dynamic consistency checking for our goal-directed method for computing answer sets, under which only those constraints deemed relevant to the partial answer set are tested, allowing inconsistent knowledgebases to be successfully queried. However, the algorithm guarantees that, if a program has at least one consistent answer set, any partial answer set returned will be a subset of some consistent answer set.

Type
Regular Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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.)

References

Arenas, M., Bertossi, L., and Chomicki, J. 1999. Consistent Query Answers in Inconsistent Databases. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems. PODS '99. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 6879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arenas, M., Bertossi, L., and Chomicki, J. 2003. Answer Sets for Consistent Query Answering in Inconsistent Databases. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 3, 4 (July), 393424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celle, A. and Bertossi, L. E. 2000. Querying Inconsistent Databases: Algorithms and Implementation. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computational Logic. CL '00. Springer-Verlag, London, UK, UK, 942956.Google Scholar
Dix, J. 1995. A Classification Theory of Semantics of Normal Logic Programs: II. Weak Properties. Fundamenta Informaticae 22, 257288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Neumann, A., and Schaub, T. 2007. Clasp: A Conflict-Driven Answer Set Solver. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. LPNMR'07. Springer-Verlag, 260265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1988. The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming. In Proceedings of the Fifth international conference on Logic Programming. MIT Press, 10701080.Google Scholar
Giunchiglia, E., Lierler, Y., and Maratea, M. 2004. SAT-Based Answer Set Programming. In Proceedings of the 19th national conference on Artifical Intelligence. AAAI'04. AAAI Press, 6166.Google Scholar
Gupta, G., Bansal, A., Min, R., Simon, L., and Mallya, A. 2007. Coinductive Logic Programming and Its Applications. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Logic Programming. ICLP'07. Springer-Verlag, 2744.Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V. and Turner, H. 1994. Splitting a Logic Program. In Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on Logic programming. ICLP '94. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2337.Google Scholar
Marple, K., Bansal, A., Min, R., and Gupta, G. 2012. Goal-directed Execution of Answer Set Programs. In Proceedings of the 14th symposium on Principles and practice of declarative programming. PPDP '12. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marple, K. and Gupta, G. 2013. Galliwasp: A Goal-Directed Answer Set Solver. In Logic-Based Program Synthesis and Transformation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7844. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 122136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salazar, E., Marple, K., and Gupta, G. 2014. Galliwasp II: Goal-directed Execution of Predicate Answer Set Programs. Tech. rep., The University of Texas at Dallas. Forthcoming.Google Scholar