Syntax-Preserving Belief Change Operators for Logic Programs
March 15, 2017 Β· Declared Dead Β· π ACM Transactions on Computational Logic
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Sebastian Binnewies, Zhiqiang Zhuang, Kewen Wang, Bela Stantic
arXiv ID
1703.04912
Category
cs.AI: Artificial Intelligence
Citations
1
Venue
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Recent methods have adapted the well-established AGM and belief base frameworks for belief change to cover belief revision in logic programs. In this study here, we present two new sets of belief change operators for logic programs. They focus on preserving the explicit relationships expressed in the rules of a program, a feature that is missing in purely semantic approaches that consider programs only in their entirety. In particular, operators of the latter class fail to satisfy preservation and support, two important properties for belief change in logic programs required to ensure intuitive results. We address this shortcoming of existing approaches by introducing partial meet and ensconcement constructions for logic program belief change, which allow us to define syntax-preserving operators that satisfy preservation and support. Our work is novel in that our constructions not only preserve more information from a logic program during a change operation than existing ones, but they also facilitate natural definitions of contraction operators, the first in the field to the best of our knowledge. In order to evaluate the rationality of our operators, we translate the revision and contraction postulates from the AGM and belief base frameworks to the logic programming setting. We show that our operators fully comply with the belief base framework and formally state the interdefinability between our operators. We further propose an algorithm that is based on modularising a logic program to reduce partial meet and ensconcement revisions or contractions to performing the operation only on the relevant modules of that program. Finally, we compare our approach to two state-of-the-art logic program revision methods and demonstrate that our operators address the shortcomings of one and generalise the other method.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Artificial Intelligence
π
π
The Cartographer
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Machine Learning: Concept and Applications
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
DeepAR: Probabilistic Forecasting with Autoregressive Recurrent Networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Rainbow: Combining Improvements in Deep Reinforcement Learning
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted