The Rise and Fall of Semantic Rule Updates Based on SE-Models
  Logic programs under the stable model semantics, or answer-set programs,
provide an expressive rule-based knowledge representation framework, featuring
a formal, declarative and well-understood semantics. However, handling the
evolution of rule bases is still a largely open problem. The AGM framework for
belief change was shown to give inappropriate results when directly applied to
logic programs under a non-monotonic semantics such as the stable models. The
approaches to address this issue, developed so far, proposed update semantics
based on manipulating the syntactic structure of programs and rules.
  More recently, AGM revision has been successfully applied to a significantly
more expressive semantic characterisation of logic programs based on SE-models.
This is an important step, as it changes the focus from the evolution of a
syntactic representation of a rule base to the evolution of its semantic
content.
  In this paper, we borrow results from the area of belief update to tackle the
problem of updating (instead of revising) answer-set programs. We prove a
representation theorem which makes it possible to constructively define any
operator satisfying a set of postulates derived from Katsuno and Mendelzon's
postulates for belief update. We define a specific operator based on this
theorem, examine its computational complexity and compare the behaviour of this
operator with syntactic rule update semantics from the literature. Perhaps
surprisingly, we uncover a serious drawback of all rule update operators based
on Katsuno and Mendelzon's approach to update and on SE-models.
