1 / 32

Assertion Answer Set Logic Program and its Application

Assertion Answer Set Logic Program and its Application. Mingyi Zhang Guizhou Academy of Science 2012-6-18. Motivation. Motivation. (1) Lack of intuition Noncumulativity (Brewka,1991; Giorddano and Martelli,1994) Cause : Inconsistency between justification of defaults

kaloni
Download Presentation

Assertion Answer Set Logic Program and its Application

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assertion Answer Set Logic Program and its Application Mingyi Zhang Guizhou Academy of Science 2012-6-18

  2. Motivation Motivation • (1) Lack of intuition • Noncumulativity • (Brewka,1991; Giorddano and Martelli,1994) • Cause : • Inconsistency between justification of defaults • ( does not commit to assumptions) • Example1 Broken-arm (Pool, 1988) • :Useable(x)¬Broken(x)/Useable(x) (1) • Broken(Leftarm)Broken(Rithtarm) • E=Th(Broken({Leftarm)Broken(Rithtarm), Useable(Leftarm), Useable(Leftarm)})

  3. Motivation Adding the information x.BROKEN(x) USABLE(x) , (3) will generate two extensions as desired. This is a type of "hard" exceptions to a default, i.e. exceptions for which the negation of the default's consequent can be proven. In this case (1) can be replaced by :Useable(x)/Useable(x) But we hope to consider a weaker type of exception to a default: we want to block a default but we don't assert the negation of its consequent. Nonnormal defaults are needed precisely to express this weaker type of exceptions.

  4. Motivation Example 2 (Brewka, 1991) DOG  BIRD PET DOG¬BIRD PET:DOG/DOG SINGS:BIRD/BIRD S1NGS . E=Th(W{BIRD)}) which contains PET Adding PET to the DT, we get another extension which contains DOG.

  5. Motivation (2) Destroy part of the additional expressiveness of nonnormal defaults CDL is cumulative and commits to assumptions. However, CDL is in the style of Lukaszewicz's default logic. It happens to be semimonotonic, whichdestroys part of the additional expressiveness of nonnormal defaults, for instance, it makes it impossible to represent priorities among defaults.

  6. Motivation Example 3 (Giorddano and Martelli,1994) student :¬ married/¬married (1) adult : married/married (2) living-in-college : student/student (3) beard : adult’adult (4) living-in-college beard We want default (1) to have a higher priority than default (2). To achieve this purpose, default (2) can be replaced with the seminormal default: adult : married¬student/) married (2’)

  7. Motivation The resulting theory has a single DL extension, Th({living-in-college, beard, student, adult, ¬married}), as wanted, since applying default (3) blocks (2'). This same theory, however, has two CDL extensions: F 1 containing (adult : (adult}), (married : (adult, married¬student} ) and: F 2 containing (student: {student}), (adult : {adult}), (¬married :{student,¬married}), since in CDL (3) blocks (2'), but (2') blocks (3) in turn. Hence, in CDL, using seminormal defaults does not allow to enforce priorities among default rules (1) and (2), as in Reiter's default logic.

  8. Motivation To do this, Giorddano and Martelli introduced CADL (Commitment to Assumption Default Logic) and QDL(Quasi-Default Logic). Guaranteeing cumulativity of QDL, they imposed a condition on definition of QDL extension. Zhang (1999) gave the definition similar to Reiter’s one, algorithms for reasoning task for CADL and QDL, and a sufficient and necessary condition for cumulitiviy of QDL. (2010)

  9. Motivation (3) Keep trace of an inference supporting a conclusion Abduction AB, B --------------- A I. Proof in Geometry II. Diagnosis based on consistency (Reiter 1980)

  10. Motivation A system is a pair (SD, COMPS), where SD, the system description: a set of first-order sentences COMPS, the system components: a finite set of constants. An observation of a system is a finite set of first-order sentences (SD, COMPS, OBS) ---- a system (SD, COMPS) with observation OBS. A diagnosis for (SD, COMPS, OBS) is a minimal set COMPS such that SD  OBS  {AB(c)  c }  {AB(c)  c  COMPS} is consistent.

  11. Motivation Proposition 1 (Zhang mingyi et al, 2004) Let (SD,Comps) be a system and OBS an observation. Given COMPS), if SDOBS{AB(c) cCOPMPS-} is consist, and for any ci , is a diagnosis for any ci, SD  OBS  {AB(c)c COMPS}╞ AB(ci), then  is a diagnosis for (SD, COMPS, OBS). Proposition 2 (Reiter, 1987) ---- Relation between Diagnosis and premise-free normal DL Consider a system (SD, COMPONENTS) under observation OBS, where so and OBS are sets of first-order sentences. Then E is an extension for the default theor yDT =( {:¬ AB(c)/ AB(c) c COMPS}, SD  OBS) iff for some diagnosis  for (SD, COMPONENTS, OBS), E = { predicts II}.

  12. Assertion ASP Assertion ASP (1) ASP--– a special case of DL Assertion ASP---a special case of QDL in Reiter’s sense Definition 1 An assertion is an expression of the form <L:S>, where L and S are a literal and a set of literals respectively. For any set of assertions W, we denote: Form(W)={L| <L:S> }, the set of literals of W. Supp(W)= , the support of W. In particular, Form(A)={L} and Supp(A)=S are the literal and support of A, for an assertion A=<L:S>.

  13. Assertion ASP Definition 2 A rule is an expression of the form L0←L1,L2, ...,Lm, not Lm+1, …, not Ln(m+n>0), where L0, Li (1≤i≤n) are literals respectively. For a set of rules R, we use the following notations: Head(R)={L0|L0←L1,L2, ...,Lm, not Lm+1, …, not LnR(m+n>0)} Pos(R)= {Li|L0←L1,L2, ...,Lm, not Lm+1, …, not LnR,1≤i≤m,(m+n>0)} Neg(R)= {Li|L0←L1,L2, ...,Lm, not Lm+1, …, not LnR,m+1≤i≤n,(m+n>0)} Write a rule as HedPos, not Neg. A rule r is basic if Neg(r)=∅ . Definition 3Π=W∪R is an assertion answer set program (AASP) if W is a set of assertions and R is a set of rules. Π=W∪R is basic if R is a set of basic rules. Π is finite iff W and R both are finite.

  14. Assertion ASP Definition 4 Let Π=W∪R be an AALP. A set of assertions E is an answer set of if E=∪0≤iEi , Where E0=W if Form(W) is consistent, otherwise {<Lit:>}, Ei+1=Ei∪Fi if Form( ) is consistent, otherwise {<Lit:>}. where Fi={<L0:∪1≤j≤mSj>|L0←L1, L2, …, Lm∈R and <Li:Sj>∈Ei for 1≤ j≤m}. Definition 5 Let =WR be an AASP and F a set of assertions . The F-reduct F is an AASP obtained by removing each rR if Neg(r) Form(F) .

  15. Assertion ASP Definition 6 Let E is an answer set of Π=W∪R . The set of generating rules for E, GD(E,Π), is the set {L0←L1,L2, ...,Lm, not Lm+1, …, not Ln∈R,(m+n>0)|for i:1≤i ≤ m,<Li:Si>∈E and for j:m+1≤j≤n,Lj∉Form(E)}. Definition 7 Let =W∪R be an AASP. For any R,. we define an operator : (R,)=∪n0n(R,), as follows: { Head Pos, not Neg R  Form(W)∪{Head} is consistent}, 0(R,)= {<Lit:>}, otherwise {HeadPos, not NegR  Pos Form(W)∪Head(n(R,) ) and Pos Form(W)∪Head(n(R,)) is consistent Tn+1(R,)= {<L: >LLit} otherwise

  16. Assertion ASP Definition 8 Let =WR be an AASP. RR is compatible (w.r.t. ), if , for any LNeg(R), LForm(W)Head(R). R’ is strongly compatible if R’ is compatible and (R , )=R. R’ is -robust (or just robust, if A is understood), if R’ is strongly compatible and, for any R R, if R is strongly compatible, then R=R. Corollary 1  has an inconsistent answer set iff Form(W)Head((R*,)) is inconsistent, where R*={rRNeg(r)=. Corollary 2 E={<Lit,>} is an answer set of  iff Form(W)Head((R*,)) is inconsistent. Corollary 3 Suppose E is an answer set of . Then Form(E) =Form(W)Head(GR(E,)) , Supp(E)=Supp(W)Neg(GR(E, ))

  17. Assertion ASP Theorem 1. (Characterization of assertional answer sets) Let =WR be an AASP.  has an answer set iff there is a strongly compatible subset R of R such that, for any rRR, Pos(r) ⊈Form(W)Head(R) or (Form(W)Head()) Neg(r) . Corollary 4 If R is compatible then =W∪R has a unique answer set.

  18. Assertion ASP Based on the characterization we can give an algorithm for computing answer sets and its complexity. Now we deal with the following problem, which we call the membership problem: Given an AASP , a robust set ' and an assertion <p:S>, determine whether <p:S> is an element of the answer set generated by '.The main reasoning tasks in AASP are skeptical reasoning (SR) and credulous reasoning. • SR: Decide whether a given assertion <p :S> occurs in all assertional answer sets of . • CR: Decide whether a given assertion <p:S> occurs in some assertional answer set of . We derive some formal results that will allow us to deal properly with supports and to solve the membership problem.

  19. Assertion ASP Definition 6 Let S be a support,  an AASP, and F a set of assertions. Then [S] = {rNeg(r)S}, F[S] = {<L:V>F VS} Lemma 1 Let  be an AASP. If R is compatible, then it has a unique answer set E and GD(E, ) = (R,). Lemma 2 Let E be an answer set of a finite AASP  and < L:S> an assertion in E. Then the assertion <L:Supp(E)> is also an element of E. From the definition of AASP extension, one may be tempted to think that reasoning in AASP requires exponential space, due to the combinatorial explosion of the supports in the intermediately generated assertions. However, in this paper we show that AASP has the same complexity as ASP.

  20. Assertion ASP Theorem 2 Let  be a finite AASP, ' a -robust set of rules, and <L:S> an assertion . Let S='[S]. Then <L:S> is an element of the answer set E' of  generated by ' iff the following two conditions (1) and (2) are satisfied: (1) LHead(('[S],S)); (2) Neg(('[S],S)) = S. Theorem 3 Let  be a finite AASP and let <p:S> be an assertion and S. (1) If Head((B)) is inconsistent, then <p:S> is not an element of any assertional answer set of .. (2) If Head((B)) is consistent, the AASP S has a unique answer set E with set of generating rules GD(E) =(S). The assertion <p:S> is an element of some extension of  iff <p:S>E.

  21. Assertion ASP Lemma 3. Let  be a finite AASP and <p:S> an assertion such that Head((B)) is consistent. Then, <p:S> belongs to some answer set of  iff for every , (S)S , it holds that (1) <p:S>Head(), and (2) Neg() = R, where S='[S]. Theorem 4. In propositional AASP the reasoning tasks SR is NP-omplete, while the reasoning task CR is DP-complete. Theorem 5 AASP is cumulative.

  22. Assertion ASP Splitting (Wu Maonian and Zhang Mingyi) Based on the Finest Splitting of Belief Set and the characterization of AASP answer sets we explored a method, which constructs a reduce without guessing a set of assertions.

  23. Applications Application (1) Alias analysis (Yang Bo and Zhang Ming) Find a well tradeoff between precision and computation cost of alias analysis for some programming languages. Alias in Java program is one of the main causes for program errors. Applying AASP can determine the propagation path of points-to information more accurately, and hence improve the precision of points-to analysis.

  24. Application ASP Rules for Points-to Analysis ref(x,o,cs,s')←pred(s,s'), ref(x,o,cs,s), not ¬ref(x,o,cs,s') (r1) reff(o,f,o',cs,s')←pred(s,s'), reff(o,f,o',cs,s), not ¬reff(o,f,o',cs,s') (r2) ref(x,os,cs,s)←new(s,os,x), call(m,c,cs,cs'), in(s,c,m), not inbranch(s) (r3) ref(x,os,cs,s)←new(s,os,x), call(m,c,cs,cs'), in(s,c,m), pred(s1,s2), if(s1), branch(s2,s1), inbranch(s), same(s2,s) (r4) ¬ref(x,o',cs,s')←pred(s,s'), new(s',o,x), ref(x,o',cs,s) (r5) ref(x,oy,cs,s')←pred(s,s'), ref(y,oy,cs,s), asn(s',x,y) (r6) ¬ref(x,ox,cs,s')← pred(s,s'), ref(x,ox,cs,s), asn(s',x,y), not sp(s') (r7) reff(ox,f,oy,cs,s')←pred(s,s'), ref(y,oy,cs,s), ref(x,ox,cs,s), store(s',x,f,y) (r8) ¬reff(ox,f,o,cs,s')←pred(s,s'), ref(x,ox,cs,s), reff(ox,f,o,cs,s), store(s',x,f,y), not sp(s') (r9) ref(y,o,cs,s')←pred(s,s'), ref(x,ox,cs,s), reff(ox,f,o,cs,s), load(s',y,x,f) (r10) ¬ref(y,oy,cs,s')←pred(s,s'), ref(y,oy,cs,s), load(s',y,x,f), not sp(s') (r11)

  25. Application sp(s')← pred(s,s'), ref(x,ox,cs,s), ref(y,oy,cs,s), ox=oy , asn(s',x,y) (r12) sp(s')←pred(s,s'), ref(x,ox,cs,s), reff(ox,f,o,cs,s), ref(y,oy,cs,s), o=oy, store(s',x,f,y) (r13) sp(s')←pred(s,s'), ref(y,oy,cs,s), ref(x,ox,cs,s), reff(ox,f,o,cs,s), oy=o, load(s',y,x,f) (r14) 1{pred(s,s'):branch(s',s)}1←if(s) (r15)

  26. Applications Definition 9 Let P is a program and R a set of rules. R is sound w.r.t. a point—to relation of P if, for any statement StP with corresponding node s in a control flowchart such that <σ, σ′> ∈PT[St], 1) for any reference x occurring in P, if σ′ x=ox，then ref(x,ox,cs,s) ∈Rule(s)； 2) for any reference-type variable with a form x.f, if σ′ x=ox and σ′ ox.f=o，then ref(x,ox,cs,s)∈Rule(s) and reff(ox,f,o,cs,s)∈Rule(s), where PT：Stm→(PS↪PS) is a point-to semantic relation, PS is the set of all point-to states and Stm is a set of statements formed by Assignment statement , Skip, Load, Store, Sequential Compound statement, Conditional statement and While statement.

  27. Applications • Theorem 3 The set R of rules is sound w.r.t. inference of points-to relation on a program. • For a diagnosis system (SD, COMPONENTS,OBS)，we call =* ∪ C∏ the program corresponding to the diagnosis system, where *={ L0←L1,…, Lm L0L1…Lm CLOBS, m0}R and C∏= {←L1,…, LmL1…LmCLOBS, m1}. • Definition 10 Given a diagnosis system DIS=(SD, COMPONENTS, OBS) and its corresponding standard program =* ∪ C∏ ,  a diagnosis for DIS if there is an answer set S of  such that

  28. Applications From Theorem 1 we have Theorem4 is a diagnosis for DIS= (SD, COMPONENTS, OBS) iff is a minimal subset of COMPONENTS such that I. ()=, where ={r*H(r)COMPONENTS- } and  is a standard program corresponding to DIS, II. CLOBS ) is consistent.

  29. Applications • Deal (Chen Wu, Zhang Dongmo and Zhang Mingyi) • Definition 11 A bargaining game is a pair ((1, ≿ 1),(2, ≿ 2)), where i (i=1,2) is an AASP and ≿i is a complete transitive and reflexive order (total preorder or weak order) over i that satisfies the following condition: for r, r1,…rni, • If Pos(r) and Pos(r)Head({r1,…rn}) then there is k (1kn) such that rk ≿ir. • The pair (i, ≿i i) is called the prioritized demand of player i. For any r, ti, r≻i t denotes that r ≿i t and t≵i r. r≈it denotes r≿i t and t≿i r. • Clearly, ≈i is an equivalent relation on i, which uniquely determines a partition of i. We use ≈i to give a hierarchy of i, that is, each equivalent class is viewed a level of the hierarchy.

  30. Applications • Definition 12 The sets of assertions E1 and E2 are co-consistent if both Form(Ei)Form(E-i) and Form(Ei)SuppE-i) are consistent, where –i=3-i. • Definition 13 Given a prioritized demand set (,≿) for an agent, its hierarchy {(j)}j1 is defined as follows: • 1={rt (r≿t)}; 1=1. for k1 • k+1={rktk (r≿t)}; k+1=kk+1. • It is easy to see that 1={ rPos(r)=}. In the sequent, we write k to denote {(j)}1jk..

  31. Applications • Definition 14 Let G=((1, ≿ 1),(2, ≿ 2)) be a bargaining game, where i= WiRi (i=1,2). A deal of G is a pair (D1,D2) satisfying the following conditions: for each i=1,2 • 1.W1W2 Di. • 2.Di =Form(Ei), where Ei is an answer set of i=(Vi,Ti) such that Ti =GD(Ei, i). • 3.Vi is a maximal subset of Wi s.t. Vi and E-I is co-consistent. • 4.for each k(k=1,2…), TiRik is a maximal subset of Rik in the following • sense: • (1) Vi1jk {<L:S>Ei LHead(TiRij ), Neg((TiRij))} and E-i are co- consistent . • (2) There is no ri Rik- Ti such that • I. ik=(Vi, 1jkTi {ri})) has an answer set F(I,k) with GD(F(I,k), ik)= 1jk (TiRik ){ri}. • II. Vi1jk {<L:S>Ei LHead((TiRij){r}), Neg((TiRij){r}))} and E-i are co- consistent. • where {Rij}j1 is the hierarchy of Ri. The set of all deals of G is denoted by (G), called the feasible set of the game.

  32. Applications • Definition 15 i, Gi as before (i=1,2). A pair of sets of literals Oi=( Di, Pi) implements gi* Gi, where • DiB+(i){ gi }, PiB+(-i){ g-i }, giGi , g-iG-i (B+ represents the positive body of a program) • if • 1. SiANS(i{l l DiPi} s.t. gi* Si, i=1,2 • 2.gi* g-i* is consistent, i=1,2 • 3.For i=1,2, gi* are maximal goals satisfying conditions 1 and 2, i.e. there are no gi’ Gi s.t. conditions 1 and 2 hold for gi’ and s.t. gi’ Si and gi*i gi’. • (3) Approach for Handling Conflicts in Authorization (Zhang Mingsheng and Zhang Mingyi)

More Related