Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Abduction with Negation as Failure for Active and Reactive Rules

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
AI*IA 99: Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI*IA 1999)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1792))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 451 Accesses

Abstract

Recent work has suggested abductive logic programming as a suitable formalism to represent active databases and intelligent agents. In particular, abducibles in abductive logic programs can be used to represent actions, and integrity constaints in abductive logic programs can be used to represent active rules of the kind encountered in active databases and reactive rules incorporating reactive behaviour in agents. One would expect that, in this approach, abductive proof procedures could provide the engine underlying active database management systems and the behaviour of agents. We analyse existing abductive proof procedures and argue that they are inadequate in handling these applications. The inadequacy is due to the inappropriate treatment of negative literals in integrity constraints. We propose a new abductive proof procedure and give examples of how this proof procedure can be used to achieve active behaviour in (deductive) databases and reactivity in agents. Finally, we prove some soundness and completeness results for the new proof procedure.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Clark, K.L.; 1978. Negation as failure. Logic and Data Bases, 293–322, Plenum, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Console, L.; Theseider Dupré, D.; Torasso, P.; 1991. On the relationship between abduction and deduction. Journal of Logic and Computation 2(5): 661–690, OUP.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Denecker, M.; De Schreye, D.; 1997. SLDNFA: an abductive procedure for abductive logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming 34(2): 111–167, Elsevier.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dung, P.M.; Mancarella, P.; 1996. Production systems need negation as failure. Proc. 13th AAAI, AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fung, T.H.; Kowalski, R.A.; 1997. The iff procedure for abductive logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming 33(2):151–165, Elsevier.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Gelfond, M.; Lifschitz, V.; 1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. Proc. 5th ICLP 1070–1080, MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Huhns, M.N.; Singh M.P. (eds); 1997. Readings in Agents, Morgan Kaufman.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Inoue, K.; Koshimura, M.; Hasegawa, R.; 1992. Embedding negation as failure into a model generation theorem prover. Proc. 11th CADE, LNAI 607:400–415, Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kakas, A.C.; Kowalski, R.A.; Toni, F.; 1998. The role of abduction in logic programming. Handbook of Logic in AI and Logic Programming 5:235–324, OUP.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Kakas, A.C.; Mancarella, P.; 1990. Abductive Logic Programming. Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning and Logic Programming.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kowalski, R.A.; Sadri, F.; 1999. From Logic Programming to Multi-agent Systems. Annals of Mathemathics and Artificial Intelligence (Forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kowalski, R.A.; Toni, F.; Wetzel, G.; 1998. Executing suspended logic programs. Fundamenta Informaticae 34(3):203–224, ISO Press.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Martelli, A.; Montanari, U.; 1982. An efficient unification algorithm. ACM Trans. on Prog. Lang. and Systems 4(2):258–282.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Rao, A.S.; Georgeff, M.P.; 1992. An abstract architecture for rational agents. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Shanahan, M.; 1997. Event calculus planning revisited. Proc. 4th European Conference on Planning 390–402, LNAI 1348, Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Widom, J.; Ceri, S.; 1996. Active Database Systems: Triggers and Rules for Advanced Database Processing, Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computing, Imperial College, London, SW7 2AZ, UK

    Fariba Sadri & Francesca Toni

Authors
  1. Fariba Sadri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesca Toni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. DEIS, University of Bologna, Viale Risorgimento, 2, 40136, Bologna, Italy

    Evelina Lamma  & Paola Mello  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Sadri, F., Toni, F. (2000). Abduction with Negation as Failure for Active and Reactive Rules. In: Lamma, E., Mello, P. (eds) AI*IA 99: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. AI*IA 1999. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1792. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46238-4_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46238-4_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-67350-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46238-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation