Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Simple Characterization of Extended Abduction

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computational Logic — CL 2000 (CL 2000)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1861))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

To explain positive observations and unexplain negative observations from nonmonotonic background theories, Inoue and Sakama (1995) extended traditional abduction by allowing removal as well as addition of hypotheses. In this paper, we propose a new characterization of extended abduction in which a background theory is written in any logic program possibly containing disjunctions. In this characterization, both removal of hypotheses and anti-explanations can be represented within the framework of traditional abductive logic programming. Using this transformation, updating knowledge bases represented in logic programs as well as restoring consistency for them can also be computed by existing proof procedures for logic programming.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. C. E. Alchourŕon, P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson. On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50(2):510–530, 1985.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. J. J. Alferes, J. A. Leite, L. M. Pereira, H. Przymusinska, and T. Przymusinski. Dynamic logic programming. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 98–109, Morgan Kaufmann, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  3. A. Borgida. Language features for flexible handling of exceptions in information systems. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 10:565–603, 1985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. F. Buccafurri, T. Eiter, G. Gottlob and L. Leone. Enhancing model checking in verification by AI techniques. Artificial Intelligence, 112(1, 2):57–104, 1999.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. C.V. Damásio and L.M. Pereira. Abduction over 3-valued extended logic programs. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, LNAI, 928, pages 29–42, Springer, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  6. T. Eiter, W. Faber, N. Leone, and G. Pfeifer. The diagnosis front-end of the dlv system. AI Communications, 12(1,2):99–111, IOS Press, 1999.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. T. Eiter, G. Gottlob, and N. Leone. Abduction from logic programs: semantics and complexity. Theoretical Computer Science, 189(1,2):129–177, 1997.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. T. Eiter, N. Leone, C. Mateis, G. Pfeifer and F. Scarnello. The KR system dlv: progress report, comparisons and benchmarks. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 406–417, Morgan Kaufmann, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J. Fernández, J. Grant and J. Minker. Model theoretic approach to view updates in deductive databases. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 17:171–197, 1996.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing, 9:365–385, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. K. Inoue. Hypothetical reasoning in logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 18(3):191–227, 1994.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. K. Inoue and Y. Kudoh. Learning extended logic programs. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-97), pages 176–181, Morgan Kaufmann, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  13. K. Inoue and C. Sakama. Abductive framework for nonmonotonic theory change. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), pages 204–210, Morgan Kaufmann, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  14. K. Inoue and C. Sakama. A fixpoint characterization of abductive logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 27(2):107–136, 1996.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. K. Inoue and C. Sakama. Negation as failure in the head. Journal of Logic Programming, 35(1):39–78, 1998.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. K. Inoue and C. Sakama. Computing extended abduction through transaction programs. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 25(3,4):339–367, 1999. Shorter version: Specifying transactions for extended abduction. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 394–405, Morgan Kaufmann, 1998.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. A. C. Kakas, R. A. Kowalski and F. Toni. Abductive logic programming. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2:719–770, 1992.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. A. C. Kakas and P. Mancarella. Database updates through abduction. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Very Large Databases, pages 650–661, Morgan Kaufmann, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  19. V. Lifschitz and T.Y. C. Woo. Answer sets in general nonmonotonic reasoning (preliminary report). In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 603–614, Morgan Kaufmann, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  20. J. Lobo and C. Uzcátegui. Abductive change operators. Fundamenta Informaticae, 27:385–412, 1996.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. I. Niemelä and P. Simons. Efficient implementation of the well-founded and stable model semantics. In: Proceedings of the Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming 1996, pages 289–303, MIT Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  22. D. Poole. A logical framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 36:27–47, 1988.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. T. C. Przymusinski. On the declarative semantics of deductive databases and logic programs. In: J. Minker, editor, Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pages 193–216, Morgan Kaufmann, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  24. C. Sakama. Abductive generalization and specialization. In: P. Flach and A. Kakas, editors. Abductive and Inductive Reasoning—Essays on their Relation and Integration, pages 285–300, Kluwer Academic, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  25. C. Sakama and K. Inoue. Updating extended logic programs through abduction. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, LNAI, 1730, pages 147–161, Springer, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  26. C. Sakama and K. Inoue. Abductive logic programming and disjunctive logic programming: their relationships and transferability. Journal of Logic Programming, 44(1–3):75–100, 2000. Preliminary version: On the equivalence between disjunctive and abductive logic programs. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 489–503, MIT Press, 1994.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. K. Satoh. Computing minimal revised logical specification by abduction. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution, pages 177–182, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  28. K. Satoh. Consistency management of normal logic program by top-down abductive proof procedure. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  29. K. Satoh and K. Iwayama. Computing abduction by using the TMS. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 505–518, MIT Press, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  30. C. Witteveen and W. van derHoek. Recovery of (non)monotonic theories. Artificial Intelligence, 106:139–159, 1998.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Kobe University, Rokkodai, Nada, Kobe, 657-8501, Japan

    Katsumi Inoue

Authors
  1. Katsumi Inoue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Australian National University, Australia

    John Lloyd

  2. Simon Fraser University, Canada

    Veronica Dahl

  3. Universität Koblenz, Germany

    Ulrich Furbach

  4. The University of Birmingham, UK

    Manfred Kerber

  5. University of Manchester, UK

    Kung-Kiu Lau

  6. The Pennsylvania State University, USA

    Catuscia Palamidessi

  7. Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal

    Luís Moniz Pereira

  8. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

    Yehoshua Sagiv

  9. The University of Melbourne, Australia

    Peter J. Stuckey

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Inoue, K. (2000). A Simple Characterization of Extended Abduction. In: Lloyd, J., et al. Computational Logic — CL 2000. CL 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1861. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44957-4_48

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44957-4_48

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-67797-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44957-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation