Abstract:In this paper we explore a unifying approach --- that of hypotheses assumption --- as a means to provide a semantics for all Normal Logic Programs (NLPs), the Minimal Hypotheses (MH) semantics. This semantics takes a positive hypotheses assumption approach as a means to guarantee the desirable properties of model existence, relevance and cumulativity, and of generalizing the Stable Models in the process. To do so we first introduce the fundamental semantic concept of minimality of assumed positive hypotheses, define the MH semantics, and analyze the semantics' properties and applicability. Indeed, abductive Logic Programming can be conceptually captured by a strategy centered on the assumption of abducibles (or hypotheses). Likewise, the Argumentation perspective of Logic Programs also lends itself to an arguments (or hypotheses) assumption approach. Previous works on Abduction have depicted the atoms of default negated literals in NLPs as abducibles, i.e., assumable hypotheses. We take a complementary and more general view than these works to NLP semantics by employing positive hypotheses instead.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is: to provide a unified semantic method - Minimal Hypotheses (MH) semantics for all Normal Logic Programs (NLPs), so as to ensure desirable properties such as model existence, relevance and cumulativity, and in the process generalize Stable Models semantics.
Specifically, the author proposes an assumption - based method to define MH semantics, aiming to overcome the limitations of existing semantics (such as Stable Models semantics) when dealing with certain logic programs. For example, when merging multiple logic programs or dealing with self - updating programs, Stable Models semantics may not be able to guarantee the existence of a model. In addition, the author also hopes that by introducing Minimal Hypotheses semantics, the uncertainty problems in non - monotonic logical reasoning can be dealt with more flexibly.
### Main Motivations and Contributions
1. **Model Existence**: Ensure that any merged logic programs always have solutions, even in the presence of Odd Loops Over Negation (OLON).
2. **Enhanced Declarability**: Improve the declarability of logic programs by clearly distinguishing Integrity Constraints (ICs) from ordinary rules.
3. **Arbitrary Updates and Merges**: Support arbitrary updates and merges of knowledge bases without destroying the consistency and integrity of semantics.
4. **Performance Optimization**: Improve the efficiency of query - driven proof processes through properties such as relevance and cumulativity.
### Example Illustration
The paper gives an example of a joint vacation problem, showing the limitations of Stable Models semantics when dealing with OLON, and explaining how Minimal Hypotheses semantics can provide more solutions.
```markdown
Example 1: A Joint Vacation Problem — Merging Logic Programs.
Three friends are planning a joint vacation:
- Friend 1: If we don’t go to the mountains, then we should go to the beach.
- Friend 2: If we don’t go traveling, then we should go to the mountains.
- Friend 3: If we don’t go to the beach, then we should go traveling.
The rules can be written as:
beach ← not mountain
mountain ← not travel
travel ← not beach
According to the Stable Models semantics, each friend had a solution (a Stable Model) for his own rule, but when we put the three rules together, the resulting merged logic program has no Stable Model due to an odd loop over negation (OLON). However, using the Minimal Hypotheses semantics, we can find solutions like {beach, mountain, not travel}, {mountain, not beach, travel}, and {travel, not mountain, beach}.
```
Through this example, the author shows the advantages of Minimal Hypotheses semantics when dealing with complex logic programs, especially in...