An infinite-game semantics for well-founded negation in logic programming

We present an infinite-game characterization of the well-founded semantics for function-free logic programs with negation. Our game is a simple generalization of the standard game for negation-less logic programs introduced by van Emden [M.H. van Emden, Quantitative deduction and its fixpoint theory, Journal of Logic Programming 3 (1) (1986) 37–53] in which two players, the Believer and the Doubter, compete by trying to prove (respectively disprove) a query. The standard game is equivalent to the minimum Herbrand model semantics of logic programming in the sense that a query succeeds in the minimum model semantics iff the Believer has a winning strategy for the game which begins with the Doubter doubting this query. The game for programs with negation that we propose follows the same rules as the standard one, except that the players swap roles every time the play “passes through” negation. We start our investigation by establishing the determinacy of the new game by using some classical tools from the theory of infinite-games. Our determinacy result immediately provides a novel and purely game-theoretic characterization of the semantics of negation in logic programming. We proceed to establish the connections of the game semantics to the existing semantic approaches for logic programming with negation. For this purpose, we first define a refined version of the game that uses degrees of winning and losing for the two players. We then demonstrate that this refined game corresponds exactly to the infinite-valued minimum model semantics of negation [P. Rondogiannis,W.W. Wadge, Minimum model semantics for logic programs with negation-as-failure, ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 6 (2) (2005) 441–467]. This immediately implies that the unrefined game is equivalent to the well-founded semantics (since the infinite-valued semantics is a refinement of the well-founded semantics).