A program-level approach to revising logic programs under the answer set semantics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An approach to the revision of logic programs under the answer set semantics is presented. For programs P and Q, the goal is to determine the answer sets that correspond to the revision of P by Q, denoted P * Q. A fundamental principle of classical (AGM) revision, and the one that guides the approach here, is the success postulate. In AGM revision, this stipulates that α ∈ K * α. By analogy with the success postulate, for programs P and Q, this means that the answer sets of Q will in some sense be contained in those of P * Q. The essential idea is that for P * Q, a three-valued answer set for Q, consisting of positive and negative literals, is first determined. The positive literals constitute a regular answer set, while the negated literals make up a minimal set of naf literals required to produce the answer set from Q. These literals are propagated to the program P, along with those rules of Q that are not decided by these literals. The approach differs from work in update logic programs in two main respects. First, we ensure that the revising logic program has higher priority, and so we satisfy the success postulate; second, for the preference implicit in a revision P * Q, the program Q as a whole takes precedence over P, unlike update logic programs, since answer sets of Q are propagated to P. We show that a core group of the AGM postulates are satisfied, as are the postulates that have been proposed for update logic programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".