Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:59:50.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Founded (Auto)Epistemic Equilibrium Logic Satisfies Epistemic Splitting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2019

JORGE FANDINNO Open the ORCID record for JORGE FANDINNO [Opens in a new window]
JORGE FANDINNO*
Affiliation:
IRIT, University of Toulouse, CNRS, France (e-mail: [email protected]) Universität Potsdam, Germany (e-mail: [email protected])
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In a recent line of research, two familiar concepts from logic programming semantics (unfounded sets and splitting) were extrapolated to the case of epistemic logic programs. The property of epistemic splitting provides a natural and modular way to understand programs without epistemic cycles but, surprisingly, was only fulfilled by Gelfond’s original semantics (G91), among the many proposals in the literature. On the other hand, G91 may suffer from a kind of self-supported, unfounded derivations when epistemic cycles come into play. Recently, the absence of these derivations was also formalised as a property of epistemic semantics called foundedness. Moreover, a first semantics proved to satisfy foundedness was also proposed, the so-called Founded Autoepistemic Equilibrium Logic (FAEEL). In this paper, we prove that FAEEL also satisfies the epistemic splitting property something that, together with foundedness, was not fulfilled by any other approach up to date. To prove this result, we provide an alternative characterisation of FAEEL as a combination of G91 with a simpler logic we called Founded Epistemic Equilibrium Logic (FEEL), which is somehow an extrapolation of the stable model semantics to the modal logic S5.

Keywords

Answer Set ProgrammingEpistemic SpecificationsEpistemic Logic Programs
Type
Original Article
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 19 , Special Issue 5-6: 35th International Conference on Logic Programming , September 2019 , pp. 671 - 687
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

Footnotes

*

This work has been partially supported by the Centre International de Mathématiques et d’Informatique de Toulouse (CIMI) through contract ANR-11-LABEX-0040-CIMI within the programme ANR-11-IDEX-0002-02 and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

References

Cabalar, P., Fandinno, J., and Fariñas del Cerro, L. 2018. Splitting Epistemic Logic Programs. arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.08763.Google Scholar
Cabalar, P., Fandinno, J., and Fariñas del Cerro, L. 2019a. Founded world views withautoepistemic equilibrium logic. In LPNMR. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (to appear). Springer.Google Scholar
Cabalar, P., Fandinno, J., and Fariñas del Cerro, L. 2019b. Splitting epistemic logic programs. In LPNMR. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (to appear). Springer.Google Scholar
Fariñas del Cerro, L., Herzig, A., and Su, E. I. 2015. Epistemic equilibrium logic. In Proc. of the Intl. Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’15). AAAI Press, 2964–2970.Google Scholar
Gelder, A. V., Ross, K. A., and Schlipf, J. S. 1991. The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. J. ACM 38, 3, 620–650.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. 1987. On stratified autoepistemic theories. In AAAI. Morgan Kaufmann, 207–211.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. 1991. Strong introspection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference, T. L. Dean and K. McKeown, Eds. Vol. 1. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, 386–391.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. 2011. New semantics for epistemic specifications. In LPNMR. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6645. Springer, 260–265.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Proc. of the 5th Intl. Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP’88). 1070–1080.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Przymusinska, H. 1992. On consistency and completeness of autoepistemic theories. Fundam. Inform. 16, 1, 59–92.Google Scholar
Kahl, P., Watson, R., Balai, E., Gelfond, M., and Zhang, Y. 2015. The language of epistemic specifications (refined) including a prototype solver. Journal of Logic and Computation.Google Scholar
Kahl, P. T. and Leclerc, A. P. 2018. Epistemic logic programs with world view constraints. In ICLP (Technical Communications). OASICS, vol. 64. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 1:1–1:17.Google Scholar
Lecrerc, A. P. and Kahl, P. T. 2018. Epistemic logic programs with world view constraints. In Technical communication, 34th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP’2018).Google Scholar
Leone, N., Rullo, P., and Scarcello, F. 1997. Disjunctive stable models: Unfounded sets, fixpoint semantics, and computation. Inf. Comput . 135 , 2, 69–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lifschitz, V. and Turner, H. 1994. Splitting a logic program. In Proc. of the Intl. Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP’94). MIT Press, 23–37.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. 1985. Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic. Artif. Intell. 25, 1, 75–94.Google Scholar
Shen, Y. and Eiter, T. 2017. Evaluating epistemic negation in answer set programming (extended abstract). In Proc. of the Intl. Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’17). 5060–5064.Google Scholar
Truszczyski, M. 2011. Revisiting epistemic specifications. In Logic Programming, Knowledge Representation, and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6565. Springer, 315–333.Google Scholar
Wang, K. and Zhang, Y. 2005. Nested epistemic logic programs. In LPNMR. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3662. Springer, 279–290.Google Scholar
Watson, R. 2000. A splitting set theorem for epistemic specifications. CoRR: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, NMR 2000 cs.AI/0003038.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Fandinno supplementary material

Fandinno supplementary material

Download Fandinno supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 207.4 KB