A New Approach for Revising Logic Programs

Belief revision has been studied mainly with respect to background logics that are monotonic in character. In this paper we study belief revision when the underlying logic is non-monotonic instead--an inherently interesting problem that is under explored. In particular, we will focus on the revision of a body of beliefs that is represented as a logic program under the answer set semantics, while the new information is also similarly represented as a logic program. Our approach is driven by the observation that unlike in a monotonic setting where, when necessary, consistency in a revised body of beliefs is maintained by jettisoning some old beliefs, in a non-monotonic setting consistency can be restored by adding new beliefs as well. We will define a syntactic revision function and subsequently provide representation theorem for characterising it.

Compositional Belief Update

In this paper we explore a class of belief update operators, in which the definition of the operator is compositional with respect to the sentence to be added. The goal is to provide an update operator that is intuitive, in that its definition is based on a recursive decomposition of the update sentences structure, and that may be reasonably implemented. In addressing update, we first provide a definition phrased in terms of the models of a knowledge base. While this operator satisfies a core group of the benchmark Katsuno-Mendelzon update postulates, not all of the postulates are satisfied. Other Katsuno-Mendelzon postulates can be obtained by suitably restricting the syntactic form of the sentence for update, as we show. In restricting the syntactic form of the sentence for update, we also obtain a hierarchy of update operators with Winsletts standard semantics as the most basic interesting approach captured. We subsequently give an algorithm which captures this approach; in the general case the algorithm is exponential, but with some not-unreasonable assumptions we obtain an algorithm that is linear in the size of the knowledge base. Hence the resulting approach has much better complexity characteristics than other operators in some situations. We also explore other compositional belief change operators: erasure is developed as a dual operator to update; we show that a forget operator is definable in terms of update; and we give a definition of the compositional revision operator. We obtain that compositional revision, under the most natural definition, yields the Satoh revision operator.

A general approach to belief change in answer set programming

We address the problem of belief change in (nonmonotonic) logic programming under answer set semantics. Unlike previous approaches to belief change in logic programming, our formal techniques are analogous to those of distance-based belief revision in propositional logic. In developing our results, we build upon the model theory of logic programs furnished by SE models. Since SE models provide a formal, monotonic characterisation of logic programs, we can adapt techniques from the area of belief revision to belief change in logic programs. We introduce methods for revising and merging logic programs, respectively. For the former, we study both subset-based revision as well as cardinality-based revision, and we show that they satisfy the majority of the AGM postulates for revision. For merging, we consider operators following arbitration merging and IC merging, respectively. We also present encodings for computing the revision as well as the merging of logic programs within the same logic programming framework, giving rise to a direct implementation of our approach in terms of off-the-shelf answer set solvers. These encodings reflect in turn the fact that our change operators do not increase the complexity of the base formalism.

A Consistency-Based Model for Belief Change: Preliminary Report

We present a general, consistency-based framework for belief change. Informally, in revising K by A, we begin with A and incorporate as much of K as consistently possible. Formally, a knowledge base K and sentence A are expressed, via renaming propositions in K, in separate languages. Using a maximization process, we assume the languages are the same insofar as consistently possible. Lastly, we express the resultant knowledge base in a single language. There may be more than one way in which A can be so extended by K: in choice revision, one such ``extension'' represents the revised state; alternately revision consists of the intersection of all such extensions. The most general formulation of our approach is flexible enough to express other approaches to revision and update, the merging of knowledge bases, and the incorporation of static and dynamic integrity constraints. Our framework differs from work based on ordinal conditional functions, notably with respect to iterated revision. We argue that the approach is well-suited for implementation: the choice revision operator gives better complexity results than general revision; the approach can be expressed in terms of a finite knowledge base; and the scope of a revision can be restricted to just those propositions mentioned in the sentence for revision A.