Showing 1–7 of 7 results for author: Delgrande, J P

Current and Future Challenges in Knowledge Representation and Reasoning

Authors: James P. Delgrande, Birte Glimm, Thomas Meyer, Miroslaw Truszczynski, Frank Wolter

Abstract: Knowledge Representation and Reasoning is a central, longstanding, and active area of Artificial Intelligence. Over the years it has evolved significantly; more recently it has been challenged and complemented by research in areas such as machine learning and reasoning under uncertainty. In July 2022 a Dagstuhl Perspectives workshop was held on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. The goal of t… ▽ More Knowledge Representation and Reasoning is a central, longstanding, and active area of Artificial Intelligence. Over the years it has evolved significantly; more recently it has been challenged and complemented by research in areas such as machine learning and reasoning under uncertainty. In July 2022 a Dagstuhl Perspectives workshop was held on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. The goal of the workshop was to describe the state of the art in the field, including its relation with other areas, its shortcomings and strengths, together with recommendations for future progress. We developed this manifesto based on the presentations, panels, working groups, and discussions that took place at the Dagstuhl Workshop. It is a declaration of our views on Knowledge Representation: its origins, goals, milestones, and current foci; its relation to other disciplines, especially to Artificial Intelligence; and on its challenges, along with key priorities for the next decade. △ Less

Submitted 8 August, 2023; originally announced August 2023.

An Approach to Forgetting in Disjunctive Logic Programs that Preserves Strong Equivalence

Authors: James P. Delgrande, Kewen Wang

Abstract: In this paper we investigate forgetting in disjunctive logic programs, where forgetting an atom from a program amounts to a reduction in the signature of that program. The goal is to provide an approach that is syntax-independent, in that if two programs are strongly equivalent, then the results of forgetting an atom in each program should also be strongly equivalent. Our central definition of for… ▽ More In this paper we investigate forgetting in disjunctive logic programs, where forgetting an atom from a program amounts to a reduction in the signature of that program. The goal is to provide an approach that is syntax-independent, in that if two programs are strongly equivalent, then the results of forgetting an atom in each program should also be strongly equivalent. Our central definition of forgetting is impractical but satisfies this goal: Forgetting an atom is characterised by the set of SE consequences of the program that do not mention the atom to be forgotten. We then provide an equivalent, practical definition, wherein forgetting an atom $p$ is given by those rules in the program that don't mention $p$, together with rules obtained by a single inference step from rules that do mention $p$. Forgetting is shown to have appropriate properties; as well, the finite characterisation results in a modest (at worst quadratic) blowup. Finally we have also obtained a prototype implementation of this approach to forgetting. △ Less

Submitted 29 April, 2014; originally announced April 2014.

Comments: In: Proceedings of 15th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning

Iterated Belief Change Due to Actions and Observations

Authors: Aaron Hunter, James P. Delgrande

Abstract: In action domains where agents may have erroneous beliefs, reasoning about the effects of actions involves reasoning about belief change. In this paper, we use a transition system approach to reason about the evolution of an agents beliefs as actions are executed. Some actions cause an agent to perform belief revision while others cause an agent to perform belief update, but the interaction bet… ▽ More In action domains where agents may have erroneous beliefs, reasoning about the effects of actions involves reasoning about belief change. In this paper, we use a transition system approach to reason about the evolution of an agents beliefs as actions are executed. Some actions cause an agent to perform belief revision while others cause an agent to perform belief update, but the interaction between revision and update can be non-elementary. We present a set of rationality properties describing the interaction between revision and update, and we introduce a new class of belief change operators for reasoning about alternating sequences of revisions and updates. Our belief change operators can be characterized in terms of a natural shifting operation on total pre-orderings over interpretations. We compare our approach with related work on iterated belief change due to action, and we conclude with some directions for future research. △ Less

Submitted 16 January, 2014; originally announced January 2014.

Journal ref: Journal Of Artificial Intelligence Research, Volume 40, pages 269-304, 2011

A Program-Level Approach to Revising Logic Programs under the Answer Set Semantics

Authors: James P. Delgrande

Abstract: An approach to the revision of logic programs under the answer set semantics is presented. For programs P and Q, the goal is to determine the answer sets that correspond to the revision of P by Q, denoted P * Q. A fundamental principle of classical (AGM) revision, and the one that guides the approach here, is the success postulate. In AGM revision, this stipulates that A is in K * A. By analogy wi… ▽ More An approach to the revision of logic programs under the answer set semantics is presented. For programs P and Q, the goal is to determine the answer sets that correspond to the revision of P by Q, denoted P * Q. A fundamental principle of classical (AGM) revision, and the one that guides the approach here, is the success postulate. In AGM revision, this stipulates that A is in K * A. By analogy with the success postulate, for programs P and Q, this means that the answer sets of Q will in some sense be contained in those of P * Q. The essential idea is that for P * Q, a three-valued answer set for Q, consisting of positive and negative literals, is first determined. The positive literals constitute a regular answer set, while the negated literals make up a minimal set of naf literals required to produce the answer set from Q. These literals are propagated to the program P, along with those rules of Q that are not decided by these literals. The approach differs from work in update logic programs in two main respects. First, we ensure that the revising logic program has higher priority, and so we satisfy the success postulate; second, for the preference implicit in a revision P * Q, the program Q as a whole takes precedence over P, unlike update logic programs, since answer sets of Q are propagated to P. We show that a core group of the AGM postulates are satisfied, as are the postulates that have been proposed for update logic programs. △ Less

Submitted 28 July, 2010; originally announced July 2010.

Journal ref: Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 10, 4--6, 2010, pp. 565-580

A Framework for Compiling Preferences in Logic Programs

Authors: J. P. Delgrande, T. Schaub, H. Tompits

Abstract: We introduce a methodology and framework for expressing general preference information in logic programming under the answer set semantics. An ordered logic program is an extended logic program in which rules are named by unique terms, and in which preferences among rules are given by a set of atoms of form s < t where s and t are names. An ordered logic program is transformed into a second, reg… ▽ More We introduce a methodology and framework for expressing general preference information in logic programming under the answer set semantics. An ordered logic program is an extended logic program in which rules are named by unique terms, and in which preferences among rules are given by a set of atoms of form s < t where s and t are names. An ordered logic program is transformed into a second, regular, extended logic program wherein the preferences are respected, in that the answer sets obtained in the transformed program correspond with the preferred answer sets of the original program. Our approach allows the specification of dynamic orderings, in which preferences can appear arbitrarily within a program. Static orderings (in which preferences are external to a logic program) are a trivial restriction of the general dynamic case. First, we develop a specific approach to reasoning with preferences, wherein the preference ordering specifies the order in which rules are to be applied. We then demonstrate the wide range of applicability of our framework by showing how other approaches, among them that of Brewka and Eiter, can be captured within our framework. Since the result of each of these transformations is an extended logic program, we can make use of existing implementations, such as dlv and smodels. To this end, we have developed a publicly available compiler as a front-end for these programming systems. △ Less

Submitted 5 March, 2002; v1 submitted 4 March, 2002; originally announced March 2002.

Comments: To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming

ACM Class: I.2.3; D.1.6

Logic Programs with Compiled Preferences

Authors: James P. Delgrande, Torsten Schaub, Hans Tompits

Abstract: We describe an approach for compiling preferences into logic programs under the answer set semantics. An ordered logic program is an extended logic program in which rules are named by unique terms, and in which preferences among rules are given by a set of dedicated atoms. An ordered logic program is transformed into a second, regular, extended logic program wherein the preferences are respected… ▽ More We describe an approach for compiling preferences into logic programs under the answer set semantics. An ordered logic program is an extended logic program in which rules are named by unique terms, and in which preferences among rules are given by a set of dedicated atoms. An ordered logic program is transformed into a second, regular, extended logic program wherein the preferences are respected, in that the answer sets obtained in the transformed theory correspond with the preferred answer sets of the original theory. Our approach allows both the specification of static orderings (as found in most previous work), in which preferences are external to a logic program, as well as orderings on sets of rules. In large part then, we are interested in describing a general methodology for uniformly incorporating preference information in a logic program. Since the result of our translation is an extended logic program, we can make use of existing implementations, such as dlv and smodels. To this end, we have developed a compiler, available on the web, as a front-end for these programming systems. △ Less

Submitted 8 March, 2000; originally announced March 2000.

ACM Class: I.2.3

A Compiler for Ordered Logic Programs

Authors: James P. Delgrande, Torsten Schaub, Hans Tompits

Abstract: This paper describes a system, called PLP, for compiling ordered logic programs into standard logic programs under the answer set semantics. In an ordered logic program, rules are named by unique terms, and preferences among rules are given by a set of dedicated atoms. An ordered logic program is transformed into a second, regular, extended logic program wherein the preferences are respected, in… ▽ More This paper describes a system, called PLP, for compiling ordered logic programs into standard logic programs under the answer set semantics. In an ordered logic program, rules are named by unique terms, and preferences among rules are given by a set of dedicated atoms. An ordered logic program is transformed into a second, regular, extended logic program wherein the preferences are respected, in that the answer sets obtained in the transformed theory correspond with the preferred answer sets of the original theory. Since the result of the translation is an extended logic program, existing logic programming systems can be used as underlying reasoning engine. In particular, PLP is conceived as a front-end to the logic programming systems dlv and smodels. △ Less

Submitted 8 March, 2000; originally announced March 2000.

ACM Class: I.2.3