Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:52:20.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thirty years of Epistemic Specifications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2021

JORGE FANDINNO Open the ORCID record for JORGE FANDINNO [Opens in a new window] ,
WOLFGANG FABER Open the ORCID record for WOLFGANG FABER [Opens in a new window]  and
MICHAEL GELFOND Open the ORCID record for MICHAEL GELFOND [Opens in a new window]
JORGE FANDINNO
Affiliation:
University of NebraskaOmaha, USA University of Potsdam, Germany (e-mail: jfandinno@unomaha.edu)
WOLFGANG FABER
Affiliation:
Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt, Austria (e-mail: wolfgang.faber@aau.at)
MICHAEL GELFOND
Affiliation:
Texas Tech University, USA (e-mail: michael.gelfond@ttu.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The language of epistemic specifications and epistemic logic programs extends disjunctive logic programs under the stable model semantics with modal constructs called subjective literals. Using subjective literals, it is possible to check whether a regular literal is true in every or some stable models of the program, those models, in this context also called belief sets, being collected in a set called world view. This allows for representing, within the language, whether some proposition should be understood accordingly to the open or the closed world assumption. Several attempts for capturing the intuitions underlying the language by means of a formal semantics were given, resulting in a multitude of proposals that makes it difficult to understand the current state of the art. In this article, we provide an overview of the inception of the field and the knowledge representation and reasoning tasks it is suitable for. We also provide a detailed analysis of properties of proposed semantics, and an outlook of challenges to be tackled by future research in the area.

Keywords

answer set programmingepistemic logic programsepistemic specificationsepistemic reasoningautopistemic logic
Type
Survey Article
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 22 , Issue 6 , November 2022 , pp. 1043 - 1083
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aguado, F., Cabalar, P., Fandinno, J., Pearce, D., Pérez, G. and Vidal, C. 2019. Revisiting explicit negation in answer set programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 19, 5–6 908–924.Google Scholar
Albanese, M., Jajodia, S. and Noel, S. 2012. Time-efficient and cost-effective network hardening using attack graphs. In IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, DSN 2012, Boston, MA, USA, June 25–28, 2012, Swarz, R. S., Koopman, P., and Cukier, M., Eds. IEEE Computer Society, 1–12.Google Scholar
Balai, E. and Kahl, P. 2014. Epistemic logic programs with sorts. https://github.com/iensen/elps/wiki.Google Scholar
Bichler, M., Morak, M. and Woltran, S. 2020. selp: A single-shot epistemic logic program solver. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 20, 4, 435–455. https://dbai.tuwien.ac.at/proj/selp/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bierman, G. and de Paiva, V. 2000. On an intuitionistic modal logic. Studia Logica, 65, 3, 383–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabalar, P., Fandinno, J. and Fariñas del Cerro, L. 2019a. Founded world views with autoepistemic equilibrium logic. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR 2019), Balduccini, M., Lierler, Y., and Woltran, S., Eds. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 11481. Springer-Verlag, 134–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabalar, P., Fandinno, J. and Fariñas del Cerro, L. 2019b. Splitting epistemic logic programs. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’19), Balduccini, M., Lierler, Y., and Woltran, S., Eds. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 11481. Springer-Verlag, 120–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabalar, P., Fandinno, J. and Fariñas del Cerro, L. 2020. Autoepistemic answer set programming. Artificial Intelligence 289, 103382.Google Scholar
Cabalar, P., Fandinno, J. and Fariñas del Cerro, L. 2021. Splitting epistemic logic programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 21, 296–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabalar, P., Fandinno, J., Garea, J., Romero, J. and Schaub, T. 2020. eclingo: A solver for epistemic logic programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 20, 5, 834–847. https://github.com/potassco/eclingo.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eiter, T. and Gottlob, G. 1995. On the computational cost of disjunctive logic programming: Propositional case. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 15 3–4, 289–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faber, W., Morak, M. and Woltran, S. 2019a. On uniform equivalence of epistemic logic programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 19, 5–6, 826–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faber, W., Morak, M. and Woltran, S. 2019b. Strong equivalence for epistemic logic programs made easy. In Proceedings of the Thirty-third National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’19), Van Hentenryck, P. and Zhou, Z., Eds. AAAI Press, 2809–2816.Google Scholar
Fandinno, J. 2019. Founded (auto)epistemic equilibrium logic satisfies epistemic splitting. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 19, 5–6, 671–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fariñas del Cerro, L., Herzig, A. and Iraz Su, E. 2015. Epistemic equilibrium logic. In Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2015), Yang, Q. and Wooldridge, M., Eds. AAAI Press, 2964–2970.Google Scholar
Fariñas del Cerro, L. and Raggio, A. 1983. Some results in intuitionistic modal logic. Logique et Analyse 26, 102, 219–224.Google Scholar
Fischer Servi, G. 1977. On modal logic with an intuitionistic base. Studia Logica: An International Journal for Symbolic Logic 36, 3, 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitting, M. and Mendelsohn, R. L. 1998. First-order modal logic. Vol. 277. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. 1991. Strong introspection. In Proceedings of the Nineth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Dean, T. and McKeown, K., Eds. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, 386–391.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. 1994. Logic programming and reasoning with incomplete information. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 12, 1–2, 89–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelfond, M. 2011. New semantics for epistemic specifications. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’11), Delgrande, J. and Faber, W., Eds. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6645. Springer-Verlag, 260–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference and Symposium of Logic Programming (ICLP’88), Kowalski, R. and Bowen, K., Eds. MIT Press, 1070–1080.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Przymusinska, H. 1993a. Reasoning on open domains. In Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning, Proceedings of the Second International Workshop, Lisbon, Portugal, June 1993, Moniz Pereira, L. and Nerode, A., Eds. MIT Press, 397–413.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Przymusinska, H. 1993b. Reasoning on open domains. In Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning, Proceedings of the Second International Workshop, Lisbon, Portugal, June 1993, Moniz Pereira, L. and Nerode, A., Eds. MIT Press, 397–413.Google Scholar
Hanks, S. and McDermott, D. 1987. Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection. Artificial Intelligence 33, 3, 379–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hecher, M., Morak, M. and Woltran, S. 2020. Structural decompositions of epistemic logic programs. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7–12, 2020. AAAI Press, 2830–2837.Google Scholar
Iraz Su, E., Farińas del Cerro, L., and Herzig, A. 2020. Autoepistemic equilibrium logic and epistemic specifications. Artificial Intelligence 282, 103249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahl, P., Leclerc, A., and Son, T. 2016. A parallel memory-efficient epistemic logic program solver: Harder, better, faster. In Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop on Answer Set Programming and Other Computing Paradigms (ASPOCP 2016), Bogaerts, B. and Harrison, A., Eds.Google Scholar
Kahl, P., Watson, R., Balai, E., Gelfond, M., and Zhang, Y. 2015. The language of epistemic specifications (refined) including a prototype solver. Journal of Logic and Computation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, M. 2007. Wviews. http://staff.scem.uws.edu.au/~yan/Wviews.html.Google Scholar
Kelly, M. 2018. Wviews. https://github.com/galactose/wviews.Google Scholar
Konolige, K. 1988. On the relation between default and autoepistemic logic. Artificial Intelligence 35, 2, 343–382.Google Scholar
Le, T. and Son, T. C. 2017. EP-ASP. https://github.com/tiep/EP-ASP.Google Scholar
Leclerc, A. and Kahl, P. 2016. Elpsolve (version 1.0). SPAWAR Systems Center Atlantic. Available on request; send e-mail to Google Scholar
Leclerc, A. and Kahl, P. 2018a. Epistemic logic programs with world view constraints. In Technical communications of the Thirty-forth International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2018).Google Scholar
Leclerc, A. and Kahl, P. 2018b. A survey of advances in epistemic logic program solvers. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Workshop on Answer Set Programming and other Computer Paradigms (ASPOCP 2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leone, N., Rullo, P., and Scarcello, F. 1997. Disjunctive stable models: Unfounded sets, fixpoint semantics, and computation. Information and Computation 135, 2, 69–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lifschitz, V. 2002. Answer set programming and plan generation. Artificial Intelligence 138, 1–2, 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lifschitz, V. and Turner, H. 1994. Splitting a logic program. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Logic Programming. MIT Press, 23–37.Google Scholar
Marek, V. and Truszczyński, M. 1989. Relating autoepistemic and default logics. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 1989), Brachman, R., Levesque, H., and Reiter, R., Eds. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 276–288.Google Scholar
Marek, V. and Truszczyński, M. 1993. Nonmonotonic logic: context-dependent reasoning. Artifical Intelligence. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Marek, V. and Truszczyński, M. 1999. Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In The Logic Programming Paradigm: A 25-Year Perspective, Apt, K., Marek, V., Truszczyński, M., and Warren, D., Eds. Springer-Verlag, 375–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marek, V. W. and Truszczynski, M. 1993. Nonmonotonic Logic - Context-Dependent Reasoning. Artificial intelligence. Springer. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/28631634.Google Scholar
Moore, R. 1985. Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic. Artificial Intelligence 25, 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, D. 1949. Constructible falsity. Journal of Symbolic Logic 14, 1 (03), 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemelä, I. 1991. Constructive tightly grounded autoepistemic reasoning. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1991), Mylopoulos, J. and Reiter, R., Eds. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 399–405.Google Scholar
Niemelä, I. 1999. Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25, 3–4, 241–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, D. and Valverde, A. 2006. Quantified equilibrium logic and the first order logic of here-and-there. Technical Report MA-06-02, University of Málaga.Google Scholar
Reiter, R. 1978. On closed world data bases. In Logic and Databases, Gallaire, H. and Minker, J., Eds. Plenum Press, New York, 55–76.Google Scholar
Reiter, R. 1992. What should a database know? Journal of Logic Programming 14, 1&2, 127–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneier, B. 1999. Attack trees. Dr. Dobb’s Journal of Software Tools 24, 12 (Dec.), 21–29.Google Scholar
Schwarz, G. 1991. Autoepistemic logic of knowledge. In Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning, Proceedings of the First International Workshop, Washington, D.C., USA, July 1991, Nerode, A., Marek, V. W., and Subrahmanian, V. S., Eds. The MIT Press, 260–274.Google Scholar
Schwarz, G. 1992. Minimal model semantics for nonmonotonic modal logics. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Constable, R. and Scedrov, A., Eds. IEEE Computer Society, 34–43.Google Scholar
Shen, Y. and Eiter, T. 2016. Evaluating epistemic negation in answer set programming. Artificial Intelligence 237, 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Y. and Eiter, T. 2017. Evaluating epistemic negation in answer set programming (extended abstract). In Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2017), Sierra, C., Ed. IJCAI/AAAI Press, 5060–5064.Google Scholar
Simpson, A. 1994. The proof theory and semantics of intuitionistic modal logic. University of Edinburgh; College of Science and Engineering.Google Scholar
Smith, D. and Weld, D. 1998. Conformant Graphplan. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1998), Mostow, J. and Rich, C., Eds. AAAI/MIT Press, 889–896.Google Scholar
Son, T., Le, T., Kahl, P. and Leclerc, A. 2017. On computing world views of epistemic logic programs. In Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2017), C. Sierra, Ed. IJCAI/AAAI Press, 1269–1275.Google Scholar
Strasser, A. 2018. EHEX. https://github.com/hexhex/ehex.Google Scholar
Su, E. I., del Cerro, L. F. and Herzig, A. 2020. Autoepistemic equilibrium logic and epistemic specifications. Artificial Intelligence 282, 103249.Google Scholar
Truszczynski, M. 2011. Revisiting epistemic specifications. In Logic Programming, Knowledge Representation, and Nonmonotonic Reasoning - Essays Dedicated to Michael Gelfond on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday, Balduccini, M. and Son, T., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6565. Springer, 315–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tseitin, G. 1968. On the complexity of derivation in the propositional calculus. Zapiski nauchnykh seminarov LOMI 8, 234–259.Google Scholar
Turner, H. 2002. Polynomial-length planning spans the polynomial hierarchy. In Logics in Artificial Intelligence, European Conference, JELIA 2002, Cosenza, Italy, September, 23–26, Proceedings, Flesca, S., Greco, S., Leone, N., and Ianni, G., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2424. Springer, 111–124.Google Scholar
Vakarelov, D. 1977. Notes on N-lattices and constructive logic with strong negation. Studia logica 36, 1–2, 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, R. 2000. A splitting set theorem for epistemic specifications. Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2000).Google Scholar
Zhang, Z., Wang, B., and Zhang, S. 2015. GISolver. http://cse.seu.edu.cn/people/seu_zzz/indexe.htm.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z. and Zhang, S. 2017. PelpSolver. https://github.com/ZhangShutao/PelpSolver.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z. and Zhao, K. 2014. ESmodels: An epistemic specification solver. http://cse.seu.edu.cn/people/seu_zzz/indexe.htm.Google Scholar