skip to main content
research-article

FDNC: Decidable nonmonotonic disjunctive logic programs with function symbols

Published: 22 January 2010 Publication History

Abstract

We present the class FDNC of logic programs that allows for function symbols (F), disjunction (D), nonmonotonic negation under the answer set semantics (N), and constraints (C), while still retaining the decidability of the standard reasoning tasks. Thanks to these features, FDNC programs are a powerful formalism for rule-based modeling of applications with potentially infinite processes and objects, and which allows also for common-sense reasoning in this context. This is evidenced, for instance, by tasks in reasoning about actions and planning: brave and open queries over FDNC programs capture the well-known problems of plan existence and secure (conformant) plan existence, respectively, in transition-based actions domains. As for reasoning from FDNC programs, we show that consistency checking and brave/cautious reasoning tasks are ExpTime-complete in general, but have lower complexity under syntactic restrictions that give rise to a family of program classes. Furthermore, we also determine the complexity of open queries (i.e., with answer variables), for which deciding non-empty answers is shown to be ExpSpace -complete under cautious entailment. Furthermore, we present algorithms for all reasoning tasks that are worst-case optimal. The majority of them resorts to a finite representation of the stable models of an FDNC program that employs maximal founded sets of knots, which are labeled trees of depth at most 1 from which each stable model can be reconstructed. Due to this property, reasoning over FDNC programs can in many cases be reduced to reasoning from knots. Once the knot-representation for a program is derived (which can be done off-line), several reasoning tasks are not more expensive than in the function-free case, and some are even feasible in polynomial time. This knowledge compilation technique paves the way to potentially more efficient online reasoning methods not only for FDNC, but also for other formalisms.

Supplementary Material

Eiter Appendix (a14-eiter-apndx.pdf)
Online appendix to FDNC: decidable nonmonotonic disjunctive logic programs with function symbols on article 14.

References

[1]
Alsaç, G. and Baral, C. 2001. Reasoning in description logics using declarative logic programming. Tech. rep., Dept. Computer Science and Engineering, Arizona State University.
[2]
Andreka, H. and Nemeti, I. 1978. The generalised completeness of Horn predicate logics as programming language. Acta Cybernet. 4, 1, 3--10.
[3]
Asparagus. Homepage (since 2005). http://asparagus.cs.uni-potsdam.de/.
[4]
Baader, F., Brandt, S., and Lutz, C. 2005. Pushing the EL envelope. In Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-05). Morgan-Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 364--369.
[5]
Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., and Patel-Schneider, P. F., Eds. 2003. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
[6]
Baral, C. 2002. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
[7]
Baselice, S., Bonatti, P. A., and Criscuolo, G. 2007. On finitely recursive programs. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2007). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4670, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 89--103.
[8]
Bonatti, P. A. 2004. Reasoning with infinite stable models. Artif. Intell. 156, 1, 75--111.
[9]
Cadoli, M. and Donini, F. 1997. A survey on knowledge compilation. AI Comm. 10, 3-4, 137--150.
[10]
Chomicki, J. 1995. Depth-bounded bottom-up evaluation of logic programs. J. Logic Prog. 25, 1, 1--31.
[11]
Chomicki, J. and Imielinski, T. 1993. Finite representation of infinite query answers. ACM Trans. Data. Sys. 18, 2, 181--223.
[12]
Dantsin, E., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., and Voronkov, A. 2001. Complexity and expressive power of logic programming. ACM Comput. Surv. 33, 3, 374--425.
[13]
Darwiche, A. and Marquis, P. 2002. A knowledge compilation map. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 17, 229--264.
[14]
Dimopoulos, Y., Nebel, B., and Koehler, J. 1997. Encoding planning problems in nonmonotonic logic programs. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Planning 1997 (ECP-97). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1348. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 169--181.
[15]
Dix, J., Furbach, U., and Nerode, A., Eds. 1997. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'97). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1265. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
[16]
Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., and Polleres, A. 2003. A logic programming approach to knowledge-state planning, II: The dlvK system. Artif. Intell. 144, 1-2, 157--211.
[17]
Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., and Polleres, A. 2004. A logic programming approach to knowledge-state planning: Semantics and complexity. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 5, 2, 206--263.
[18]
Eiter, T. and Gottlob, G. 1997. Expressiveness of stable model semantics for disjunctive logic programs with functions. J. Logic Prog. 33, 2, 167--178.
[19]
Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., and Mannila, H. 1997a. Disjunctive datalog. ACM Trans. Datab. Syst. 22, 3, 364--418.
[20]
Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Schindlauer, R., and Tompits, H. 2005. A uniform integration of higher-order reasoning and external evaluations in answer set programming. In Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-05), Morgan-Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 90--96.
[21]
Eiter, T., Leone, N., Mateis, C., Pfeifer, G., and Scarcello, F. 1997b. A deductive system for non-monotonic reasoning. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'97). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1265. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 364--375.
[22]
Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Neumann, A., and Schaub, T. 2007. Clasp : A conflict-driven answer set solver. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR-07). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4483. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 260--265.
[23]
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generat. Comput. 9, 3/4, 365--386.
[24]
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1992. Representing actions in extended logic programming. In Proceedings of the Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming (JICSLP-92). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 559--573.
[25]
Giunchiglia, E. and Lifschitz, V. 1998. An action language based on causal explanation: Preliminary report. In Proceedings of the 15th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-98). AAAI Press, Cambridge, MA, 623--630.
[26]
Hanks, S. and McDermott, D. V. 1987. Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection. Artif. Intell. 33, 3, 379--412.
[27]
Haslum, P. and Jonsson, P. 1999. Some results on the complexity of planning with incomplete information. In Proceedings of the 5th European Conference Planning (ECP-99). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1809. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 308--318.
[28]
Herbrand, J. 1971. Logical Writings. Harvard University Press.
[29]
Heymans, S. 2006. Decidable open answer set programming. Ph.D. dissertation, Theoretical Computer Science Lab, Department of Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
[30]
Heymans, S., Nieuwenborgh, D. V., and Vermeir, D. 2005. Nonmonotonic ontological and rule-based reasoning with extended conceptual logic programs. In Proceedings of the 2nd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC-05), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3532. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 392--407.
[31]
Heymans, S. and Vermeir, D. 2003. Integrating semantic web reasoning and answer set programming. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Answer Set Programming (ASP-2003), CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 78. CEUR-WS.org, 194--208.
[32]
Hustadt, U., Motik, B., and Sattler, U. 2004a. Reducing SHIQ-description logic to disjunctive datalog programs. In Proceedings KR-2004. AAAI Press, Cambridge, MA, 152--162.
[33]
Hustadt, U., Schmidt, R. A., and Georgieva, L. 2004b. A survey of decidable first-order fragments and description logics. J. Relat. Meth. Comput. Sci. 1, 251--276.
[34]
Itai, A. and Makowsky, J. A. 1987. Unification as a complexity measure for logic programming. J. Logic Prog. 4, 105--117.
[35]
Kaelbling, L. P. and Saffiotti, A., Eds. 2005. IJCAI-05, Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
[36]
Levesque, H. J., Pirri, F., and Reiter, R. 1998. Foundations for the situation calculus. Electronic Trans. Artif. Intell. 2, 159--178.
[37]
Lifschitz, V. 1999. Answer set planning. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP-99). The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 23--37.
[38]
Lifschitz, V. 2002. Answer set programming and plan generation. Artif. Intell. 138, 39--54.
[39]
Lifschitz, V. and Turner, H. 1994. Splitting a logic program. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP-94). The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 23--37.
[40]
Marek, V. W. and Remmel, J. B. 2003. On the expressibility of stable logic programming. Theory Pract. Logic Prog. 3, 4-5, 551--567.
[41]
Marek, V. W. and Truszczyński, M. 1999. Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In The Logic Programming Paradigm -- A25-Year Perspective, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 375--398.
[42]
Marek, W., Nerode, A., and Remmel, J. 1992. How complicated is the set of stable models of a recursive logic program? Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 56, 119--135.
[43]
Marek, W., Nerode, A., and Remmel, J. 1994. The stable models of a predicate logic program. J. Logic Prog. 21, 3, 129--153.
[44]
Morales, A. R., Tu, P. H., and Son, T. C. 2007. An extension to conformant planning using logic programming. In Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-07). AAAI Press/IJCAI, Cambridge, MA, 1991--1996.
[45]
Motik, B., Horrocks, I., and Sattler, U. 2007. Bridging the gap between OWL and relational databases. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW-07). ACM, New York, 807--816.
[46]
Niemelä, I. 1999. Logic programming with stable model semantics as constraint programming paradigm. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 25, 3--4, 241--273.
[47]
Niemelä, I. and Simons, P. 1997. Smodels - an implementation of the stable model and well-founded semantics for normal lp. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'97), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1265. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 421--430.
[48]
Savitch, W. J. 1970. Relationships between nondeterministic and deterministic tape complexities. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 4, 2, 177--192. (ISSN 1439-2275).
[49]
Schild, K. 1991. A correspondence theory for terminological logics: Preliminary report. In Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-91). Morgan-Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 466--471.
[50]
Son, T. C., Baral, C., Tran, N., and McIlraith, S. A. 2006. Domain-dependent knowledge in answer set planning. ACM Trans. Computat. Logic 7, 4, 613--657.
[51]
Son, T. C., Tu, P. H., Gelfond, M., and Morales, A. R. 2005. Conformant planning for domains with constraints-a new approach. In Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-05). AAAI Press/MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1211--1216.
[52]
Swift, T. 2004. Deduction in ontologies via ASP. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR-04). Lecture Notes in Computer Science/Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2923. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 275--288.
[53]
Syrjänen, T. 2001. Omega-restricted logic programs. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR-01). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2173. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 267--279.
[54]
Tu, P. H., Son, T. C., and Baral, C. 2007. Reasoning and planning with sensing actions, incomplete information, and static causal laws using answer set programming. Theory Pract. Logic Prog. 7, 4, 377--450.
[55]
Woltran, S. 2005. Answer set programming: Model applications and proofs-of-concept. Tech. Rep. WP5, Working Group on Answer Set Programming (WASP, IST-FET-2001-37004). July. Available at http://www.kr.tuwien.ac.at/projects/WASP/report.html.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computational Logic
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic  Volume 11, Issue 2
January 2010
261 pages
ISSN:1529-3785
EISSN:1557-945X
DOI:10.1145/1656242
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 22 January 2010
Accepted: 01 February 2009
Revised: 01 December 2008
Received: 01 January 2008
Published in TOCL Volume 11, Issue 2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Answer set programming
  2. computational complexity
  3. description logics
  4. function symbols
  5. knowledge compilation
  6. nonmonotonic logic programs
  7. reasoning about actions

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed

Funding Sources

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)3
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 02 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Stream reasoning with DatalogMTLJournal of Web Semantics10.1016/j.websem.2023.10077676(100776)Online publication date: Apr-2023
  • (2022)The delay and window size problems in rule-based stream reasoningArtificial Intelligence10.1016/j.artint.2022.103668306:COnline publication date: 1-May-2022
  • (2021)Stable Model Semantics for Guarded Existential Rules and Description Logics: Decidability and ComplexityJournal of the ACM10.1145/344750868:5(1-87)Online publication date: 22-Oct-2021
  • (2017)Polynomially bounded logic programs with function symbolsProceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3298239.3298393(1041-1047)Online publication date: 4-Feb-2017
  • (2017)Stable Model Semantics for Tuple-Generating Dependencies RevisitedProceedings of the 36th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database Systems10.1145/3034786.3034794(377-388)Online publication date: 9-May-2017
  • (2015)Logic program termination analysis using atom sizesProceedings of the 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/2832581.2832645(2833-2839)Online publication date: 25-Jul-2015
  • (2015)Default Negation for Non-Guarded Existential RulesProceedings of the 34th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database Systems10.1145/2745754.2745758(79-90)Online publication date: 20-May-2015
  • (2015)Recent Advances in Datalog$$^\pm $$Reasoning Web. Web Logic Rules10.1007/978-3-319-21768-0_8(193-217)Online publication date: 11-Jul-2015
  • (2015)Binary Frontier-Guarded ASP with Function SymbolsRule Technologies: Foundations, Tools, and Applications10.1007/978-3-319-21542-6_20(311-327)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2015
  • (2015)Proceedings of the 34th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database SystemsundefinedOnline publication date: 20-May-2015
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media