11 Search Results for "Brewka, Gerhard"


Document
Extended Abstract
A Decomposition Framework for Inconsistency Handling in Qualitative Spatial and Temporal Reasoning (Extended Abstract)

Authors: Yakoub Salhi and Michael Sioutis

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 278, 30th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME 2023)


Abstract
Dealing with inconsistency is a central problem in AI, due to the fact that inconsistency can arise for many reasons in real-world applications, such as context dependency, multi-source information, vagueness, noisy data, etc. Among the approaches that are involved in inconsistency handling, we can mention argumentation, non-monotonic reasoning, and paraconsistency, e.g., see [Philippe Besnard and Anthony Hunter, 2008; Gerhard Brewka et al., 1997; Koji Tanaka et al., 2013]. In the work of [Yakoub Salhi and Michael Sioutis, 2023], we are interested in dealing with inconsistency in the context of Qualitative Spatio-Temporal Reasoning (QSTR) [Ligozat, 2013]. QSTR is an AI framework that aims to mimic, natural, human-like representation and reasoning regarding space and time. This framework is applied to a variety of domains, such as qualitative case-based reasoning and learning [Thiago Pedro Donadon Homem et al., 2020] and visual sensemaking [Jakob Suchan et al., 2021]; the interested reader is referred to [Michael Sioutis and Diedrich Wolter, 2021] for a recent survey. Motivation. In [Yakoub Salhi and Michael Sioutis, 2023], we study the decomposition of an inconsistent constraint network into consistent subnetworks under, possible, mandatory constraints. To illustrate the interest of such a decomposition, we provide a simple example described in Figure 1. The QCN depicted in the top part of the figure corresponds to a description of an inconsistent plan. Further, we assume that the constraint Task A {before} Task B is mandatory. To handle inconsistency, this plan can be transformed into a decomposition of two consistent plans, depicted in the bottom part of the figure; this decomposition can be used, e.g., to capture the fact that Task C must be performed twice. More generally, network decomposition can be involved in inconsistency handling in several ways: it can be used to identify potential contexts that explain the presence of inconsistent information; it can also be used to restore consistency through a compromise between the components of a decomposition, e.g., by using belief merging [Jean-François Condotta et al., 2010]; in addition, QCN decomposition can be used as the basis for defining inconsistency measures. Contributions. We summarize the contributions of [Yakoub Salhi and Michael Sioutis, 2023] as follows. First, we propose a theoretical study of a problem that consists in decomposing an inconsistent QCN into a bounded number of consistent QCNs that may satisfy a specified part in the original QCN; intuitively, the required common part corresponds to the constraints that are considered necessary, if any. To this end, we provide upper bounds for the minimum number of components in a decomposition as well as computational complexity results. Secondly, we provide two methods for solving our decomposition problem. The first method corresponds to a greedy constraint-based algorithm, a variant of which involves the use of spanning trees; the basic idea of this variant is that any acyclic constraint graph in QSTR is consistent, and such a graph can be used as a starting point for building consistent components. The second method corresponds to a SAT-based encoding; every model of this encoding is used to construct a valid decomposition. Thirdly, we consider two optimization versions of the initial decomposition problem that focus on minimizing the number of components and maximizing the similarity between components, respectively. The similarity between two QCNs is quantified by the number of common non-universal constraints; the interest in maximizing the similarity lies mainly in the fact that it reduces the number of constraints that allow each component to be distinguished from the rest. Of course, our previous methods are adapted to tackle these optimization versions, too. Additionally, we introduce two inconsistency measures based on QCN decomposition, which can be seen as counterparts of measures for propositional KBs introduced in [Matthias Thimm, 2016; Meriem Ammoura et al., 2017], and show that they satisfy several desired properties in the literature. Finally, we provide implementations of our methods for computing decompositions and experimentally evaluate them using different metrics.

Cite as

Yakoub Salhi and Michael Sioutis. A Decomposition Framework for Inconsistency Handling in Qualitative Spatial and Temporal Reasoning (Extended Abstract). In 30th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME 2023). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 278, pp. 16:1-16:3, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2023)


Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{salhi_et_al:LIPIcs.TIME.2023.16,
  author =	{Salhi, Yakoub and Sioutis, Michael},
  title =	{{A Decomposition Framework for Inconsistency Handling in Qualitative Spatial and Temporal Reasoning}},
  booktitle =	{30th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME 2023)},
  pages =	{16:1--16:3},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-298-3},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2023},
  volume =	{278},
  editor =	{Artikis, Alexander and Bruse, Florian and Hunsberger, Luke},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops-dev.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.TIME.2023.16},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-191062},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.TIME.2023.16},
  annote =	{Keywords: Spatial and Temporal Reasoning, Qualitative Constraints, Inconsistency Handling, Decomposition, Inconsistency Measures}
}
Document
Dynamic Interactions Between Goals and Beliefs

Authors: Steven Shapiro and Gerhard Brewka

Published in: Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 7351, Formal Models of Belief Change in Rational Agents (2007)


Abstract
Shapiro et al. [2005], presented a framework for representing goal change in the situation calculus. In that framework, agents adopt a goal when requested to do so (by some agent reqr), and they remain committed to the goal unless the request is cancelled by reqr. A common assumption in the agent theory literature, is that achievement goals that are believed to be impossible to achieve should be dropped. In this paper, we incorporate this assumption into Shapiro et al.'s framework, however we go a step further. If an agent believes a goal is impossible to achieve, it is dropped. However, if the agent later believes that it was mistaken about the impossibility of achieving the goal, the agent might readopt the goal. In addition, we consider an agent's goals as a whole when making them compatible with their beliefs, rather than considering them individually.

Cite as

Steven Shapiro and Gerhard Brewka. Dynamic Interactions Between Goals and Beliefs. In Formal Models of Belief Change in Rational Agents. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 7351, pp. 1-9, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2007)


Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{shapiro_et_al:DagSemProc.07351.10,
  author =	{Shapiro, Steven and Brewka, Gerhard},
  title =	{{Dynamic Interactions Between Goals and Beliefs}},
  booktitle =	{Formal Models of Belief Change in Rational Agents},
  pages =	{1--9},
  series =	{Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings (DagSemProc)},
  ISSN =	{1862-4405},
  year =	{2007},
  volume =	{7351},
  editor =	{Giacomo Bonanno and James Delgrande and J\'{e}r\^{o}me Lang and Hans Rott},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops-dev.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/DagSemProc.07351.10},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-11995},
  doi =		{10.4230/DagSemProc.07351.10},
  annote =	{Keywords: Goal Change, Belief Change, Situation Calculus}
}
Document
05171 Abstracts Collection – Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints

Authors: Gerhard Brewka, Ilkka Niemelä, Torsten Schaub, Miroslaw Truszczynski, and Joost Vennekens

Published in: Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 5171, Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints (2005)


Abstract
From 24.04.05 to 29.04.05, the Dagstuhl Seminar 05171 ``Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints'' was held in the International Conference and Research Center (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl. During the seminar, several participants presented their current research, and ongoing work and open problems were discussed. Abstracts of the presentations given during the seminar as well as abstracts of seminar results and ideas are put together in this paper. The first section describes the seminar topics and goals in general. Links to extended abstracts or full papers are provided, if available.

Cite as

Gerhard Brewka, Ilkka Niemelä, Torsten Schaub, Miroslaw Truszczynski, and Joost Vennekens. 05171 Abstracts Collection – Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints. In Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 5171, pp. 1-23, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2005)


Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{brewka_et_al:DagSemProc.05171.1,
  author =	{Brewka, Gerhard and Niemel\"{a}, Ilkka and Schaub, Torsten and Truszczynski, Miroslaw and Vennekens, Joost},
  title =	{{05171 Abstracts Collection – Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints}},
  booktitle =	{Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints},
  pages =	{1--23},
  series =	{Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings (DagSemProc)},
  ISSN =	{1862-4405},
  year =	{2005},
  volume =	{5171},
  editor =	{Gerhard Brewka and Ilkka Niemel\"{a} and Torsten Schaub and Miroslaw Truszczynski},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops-dev.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/DagSemProc.05171.1},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-2690},
  doi =		{10.4230/DagSemProc.05171.1},
  annote =	{Keywords: Knowledge representation, nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, answer-set programming, constraints}
}
Document
05171 Executive Summary – Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints

Authors: Gerhard Brewka, Ilkka Niemelä, Torsten Schaub, and Miroslaw Truszczynski

Published in: Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 5171, Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints (2005)


Abstract
We provide a brief overview of the seminar and comment on most important research themes that emerged.

Cite as

Gerhard Brewka, Ilkka Niemelä, Torsten Schaub, and Miroslaw Truszczynski. 05171 Executive Summary – Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints. In Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 5171, pp. 1-2, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2005)


Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{brewka_et_al:DagSemProc.05171.2,
  author =	{Brewka, Gerhard and Niemel\"{a}, Ilkka and Schaub, Torsten and Truszczynski, Miroslaw},
  title =	{{05171 Executive Summary – Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints}},
  booktitle =	{Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints},
  pages =	{1--2},
  series =	{Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings (DagSemProc)},
  ISSN =	{1862-4405},
  year =	{2005},
  volume =	{5171},
  editor =	{Gerhard Brewka and Ilkka Niemel\"{a} and Torsten Schaub and Miroslaw Truszczynski},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops-dev.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/DagSemProc.05171.2},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-2607},
  doi =		{10.4230/DagSemProc.05171.2},
  annote =	{Keywords: Knowledge representation, nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, answer-set programming, constraints}
}
Document
Answer Set Programming and Combinatorial Voting

Authors: Rafal Grabos

Published in: Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 5171, Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints (2005)


Abstract
We show how Logic Programming with Ordered Disjunction (LPOD), the extension of answer set programming for handling preferences, may be used for representing and solving collective decision making problems. We present the notion of combinatorial vote problem in the context of LPOD and define various types of vote rules, used as decision criteria for determining optimal candidate for a group of voters. 15 min presentation

Cite as

Rafal Grabos. Answer Set Programming and Combinatorial Voting. In Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 5171, pp. 1-15, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2005)


Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{grabos:DagSemProc.05171.3,
  author =	{Grabos, Rafal},
  title =	{{Answer Set Programming and Combinatorial Voting}},
  booktitle =	{Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints},
  pages =	{1--15},
  series =	{Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings (DagSemProc)},
  ISSN =	{1862-4405},
  year =	{2005},
  volume =	{5171},
  editor =	{Gerhard Brewka and Ilkka Niemel\"{a} and Torsten Schaub and Miroslaw Truszczynski},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops-dev.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/DagSemProc.05171.3},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-2624},
  doi =		{10.4230/DagSemProc.05171.3},
  annote =	{Keywords: Decision making, answer set programming, preferences}
}
Document
Modelling and Implementing a Knowledge Base for Checking Medical Invoices with DLV

Authors: Gabriele Kern-Isberner, Christoph Beierle, and Oliver Dusso

Published in: Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 5171, Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints (2005)


Abstract
Checking medical invoices, done by every health insurance company, is a labor-intensive task. Both speed and quality of executing this task may be increased by the knowledge-based decision support system ACMI which we present in this paper. As the relevant regulations also contain various default rules, ACMI`s knowledge core is modelled using the answer set programming paradigm. It turned out that all relevant rules could be expressed directly in this framework, providing for a declarative and easily extendable and modifiable knowledge base. ACMI is implemented using the DLV system.

Cite as

Gabriele Kern-Isberner, Christoph Beierle, and Oliver Dusso. Modelling and Implementing a Knowledge Base for Checking Medical Invoices with DLV. In Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 5171, pp. 1-12, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2005)


Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{kernisberner_et_al:DagSemProc.05171.4,
  author =	{Kern-Isberner, Gabriele and Beierle, Christoph and Dusso, Oliver},
  title =	{{Modelling and Implementing a Knowledge Base for Checking Medical Invoices with DLV}},
  booktitle =	{Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints},
  pages =	{1--12},
  series =	{Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings (DagSemProc)},
  ISSN =	{1862-4405},
  year =	{2005},
  volume =	{5171},
  editor =	{Gerhard Brewka and Ilkka Niemel\"{a} and Torsten Schaub and Miroslaw Truszczynski},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops-dev.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/DagSemProc.05171.4},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-2610},
  doi =		{10.4230/DagSemProc.05171.4},
  annote =	{Keywords: Answer sets, default rules, health insurance, rule schemas}
}
Document
Normal Form Theorem for Logic Programs with Cardinality Constraints

Authors: Victor W. Marek and Jeffrey B. Remmel

Published in: Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 5171, Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints (2005)


Abstract
We discuss proof schemes, a kind of context-dependent proofs for logic programs. We show usefullness of these constructs both in the context of normal logic programs and their generalizations due to Niemela and collaborators. As an application we show the following result. For every cardinality-constraint logic program P there is a logic program P´ with the same heads, but with bodies consisting of atoms and negated atoms such that P and P´ have same stable models. It is worth noting that another proof of same result can be obtained from the results by Lifschitz and collaborators.

Cite as

Victor W. Marek and Jeffrey B. Remmel. Normal Form Theorem for Logic Programs with Cardinality Constraints. In Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 5171, pp. 1-34, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2005)


Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{marek_et_al:DagSemProc.05171.5,
  author =	{Marek, Victor W. and Remmel, Jeffrey B.},
  title =	{{Normal Form Theorem for Logic Programs with Cardinality Constraints}},
  booktitle =	{Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints},
  pages =	{1--34},
  series =	{Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings (DagSemProc)},
  ISSN =	{1862-4405},
  year =	{2005},
  volume =	{5171},
  editor =	{Gerhard Brewka and Ilkka Niemel\"{a} and Torsten Schaub and Miroslaw Truszczynski},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops-dev.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/DagSemProc.05171.5},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-2598},
  doi =		{10.4230/DagSemProc.05171.5},
  annote =	{Keywords: Proof scheme, cardinality constraints}
}
Document
Possibilistic Stable Models

Authors: Pascal Nicolas, Laurent Garcia, and Igor Stéphan

Published in: Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 5171, Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints (2005)


Abstract
We present the main lines of a new framework that we have defined in order to improve the knowledge representation power of Answer Set Programming paradigm. Our proposal is to use notions from possibility theory to extend the stable model semantics by taking into account a certainty level, expressed in terms of necessity measure, on each rule of a normal logic program. First of all, we introduce possibilistic definite logic programs and show how to compute the conclusions of such programs both in syntactic and semantic ways. The syntactic handling is done by help of a fix-point operator, the semantic part relies on a possibility distribution on all sets of atoms and the two approaches are shown to be equivalent. In a second part, we define what is a possibilistic stable model for a normal logic program, with default negation. Again, we define a possibility distribution allowing to determine the stable models. We end our presentation by showing how we can use our framework to adressing inconsistency in Answer Set Programming.

Cite as

Pascal Nicolas, Laurent Garcia, and Igor Stéphan. Possibilistic Stable Models. In Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 5171, pp. 1-6, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2005)


Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{nicolas_et_al:DagSemProc.05171.6,
  author =	{Nicolas, Pascal and Garcia, Laurent and St\'{e}phan, Igor},
  title =	{{Possibilistic Stable Models}},
  booktitle =	{Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints},
  pages =	{1--6},
  series =	{Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings (DagSemProc)},
  ISSN =	{1862-4405},
  year =	{2005},
  volume =	{5171},
  editor =	{Gerhard Brewka and Ilkka Niemel\"{a} and Torsten Schaub and Miroslaw Truszczynski},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops-dev.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/DagSemProc.05171.6},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-2641},
  doi =		{10.4230/DagSemProc.05171.6},
  annote =	{Keywords: Non monotonic reasoning, uncertainty, possibility theory}
}
Document
Semantic Web Languages and Semantic Web Services as Application Areas for Answer Set Programming

Authors: Axel Polleres

Published in: Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 5171, Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints (2005)


Abstract
In the Semantic Web and Semantic Web Services areas there are still unclear issues concerning an appropriate language. Answer Set Programming and ASP engines can be particularly interesting for Ontological Reasoning, especially in the light of ongoing discussions of non-Monotonic extensions for Ontology Languages. Previously, the main concern of discussions was around OWL and Description Logics. Recently many extensions and suggestions for Rule Languages and Semantic Web Languages pop up, particularly in the the context of Semantic Web Services, which involve the meta-data description of Services instaead of static data on the Web only. These lanuages involve SWRL, WSML, SWSL-Rules, etc. I want to give an outline of languages, challenges and initiatives in this area and where I think Answer Set Programming research can hook in. (30min).

Cite as

Axel Polleres. Semantic Web Languages and Semantic Web Services as Application Areas for Answer Set Programming. In Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 5171, pp. 1-6, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2005)


Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{polleres:DagSemProc.05171.7,
  author =	{Polleres, Axel},
  title =	{{Semantic Web Languages and Semantic Web Services as Application Areas for Answer Set Programming}},
  booktitle =	{Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints},
  pages =	{1--6},
  series =	{Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings (DagSemProc)},
  ISSN =	{1862-4405},
  year =	{2005},
  volume =	{5171},
  editor =	{Gerhard Brewka and Ilkka Niemel\"{a} and Torsten Schaub and Miroslaw Truszczynski},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops-dev.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/DagSemProc.05171.7},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-2631},
  doi =		{10.4230/DagSemProc.05171.7},
  annote =	{Keywords: Semantic Web, Semantic Web Services, Rule Lagnuages, RDF, RDFS, OWL, WSMO, WSML, OWL-S, SWSL, SWSF}
}
Document
Set Based Logic Programming

Authors: Jeffrey B. Remmel and Victor W. Marek

Published in: Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 5171, Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints (2005)


Abstract
We propose a set of desiderata for extensions of Answer Set Programming to capture domains where the objects of interest are infinite sets and yet we can still process ASP programs effectively. We propose two different schemes to do this. One is to extend cardinality type constraints to set constraints which involve codes for finite, recursive and recursively enumerable sets. A second scheme to modify logic programming to reason about sets directly. In this setting, we can also augment logic programming with certain monotone inductive operators so that we can reason about families of sets which have structure such a closed sets of a topological space or subspaces of a vector space. We observe that under such conditions, the classic Gelfond-Lifschitz construction generalizes to at least two different notions of stable models.

Cite as

Jeffrey B. Remmel and Victor W. Marek. Set Based Logic Programming. In Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 5171, pp. 1-26, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2005)


Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{remmel_et_al:DagSemProc.05171.8,
  author =	{Remmel, Jeffrey B. and Marek, Victor W.},
  title =	{{Set Based Logic Programming}},
  booktitle =	{Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints},
  pages =	{1--26},
  series =	{Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings (DagSemProc)},
  ISSN =	{1862-4405},
  year =	{2005},
  volume =	{5171},
  editor =	{Gerhard Brewka and Ilkka Niemel\"{a} and Torsten Schaub and Miroslaw Truszczynski},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops-dev.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/DagSemProc.05171.8},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-2667},
  doi =		{10.4230/DagSemProc.05171.8},
  annote =	{Keywords: ASP, codes for infinite sets, stable model generalizations}
}
Document
Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints (Dagstuhl Seminar 02381)

Authors: Gerhard Brewka, Ilkka Niemelä, Torsten Schaub, and Miroslaw Truszczynski

Published in: Dagstuhl Seminar Reports. Dagstuhl Seminar Reports, Volume 1 (2021)


Abstract

Cite as

Gerhard Brewka, Ilkka Niemelä, Torsten Schaub, and Miroslaw Truszczynski. Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints (Dagstuhl Seminar 02381). Dagstuhl Seminar Report 354, pp. 1-18, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2003)


Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@TechReport{brewka_et_al:DagSemRep.354,
  author =	{Brewka, Gerhard and Niemel\"{a}, Ilkka and Schaub, Torsten and Truszczynski, Miroslaw},
  title =	{{Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints (Dagstuhl Seminar 02381)}},
  pages =	{1--18},
  ISSN =	{1619-0203},
  year =	{2003},
  type = 	{Dagstuhl Seminar Report},
  number =	{354},
  institution =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops-dev.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/DagSemRep.354},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-152348},
  doi =		{10.4230/DagSemRep.354},
}
  • Refine by Author
  • 4 Brewka, Gerhard
  • 3 Niemelä, Ilkka
  • 3 Schaub, Torsten
  • 3 Truszczynski, Miroslaw
  • 2 Marek, Victor W.
  • Show More...

  • Refine by Classification
  • 1 Computing methodologies → Spatial and physical reasoning
  • 1 Computing methodologies → Temporal reasoning
  • 1 Theory of computation → Constraint and logic programming

  • Refine by Keyword
  • 2 Knowledge representation
  • 2 answer-set programming
  • 2 constraints
  • 2 logic programming
  • 2 nonmonotonic reasoning
  • Show More...

  • Refine by Type
  • 11 document

  • Refine by Publication Year
  • 8 2005
  • 1 2003
  • 1 2007
  • 1 2023

Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail