Context-sensitive global analysis of large code bases can be expensive, which can make its use impractical during software development. However, there are many situations in which modifications are small and isolated within a few components, and it is desirable to reuse as much as possible previous analysis results. This has been achieved to date through incremental global analysis fixpoint algorithms that achieve cost reductions at fine levels of granularity, such as changes in program lines. However, these fine-grained techniques are neither directly applicable to modular programs nor are they designed to take advantage of modular structures. This paper describes, implements, and evaluates an algorithm that performs efficient context-sensitive analysis incrementally on modular partitions of programs. The experimental results show that the proposed modular algorithm shows significant improvements, in both time and memory consumption, when compared to existing non-modular, fine-grain incremental analysis techniques. Furthermore, thanks to the proposed intermodular propagation of analysis information, our algorithm also outperforms traditional modular analysis even when analyzing from scratch.

Answer-Set Programming (ASP) is a powerful and expressive knowledge representation paradigm with a significant number of applications in logic-based AI. The traditional ground-and-solve approach, however, requires ASP programs to be grounded upfront and thus suffers from the so-called grounding bottleneck (i.e., ASP programs easily exhaust all available memory and thus become unsolvable). As a remedy, lazy-grounding ASP solvers have been developed, but many state-of-the-art techniques for grounded ASP solving have not been available to them yet. In this work we present, for the first time, adaptions to the lazy-grounding setting for many important techniques, like restarts, phase saving, domain-independent heuristics, and learned-clause deletion. Furthermore, we investigate their effects and in general observe a large improvement in solving capabilities and also uncover negative effects in certain cases, indicating the need for portfolio solving as known from other solvers.

In answer set programming, inconsistencies arise when the constraints placed on a program become unsatisfiable. In this paper, we introduce a technique for dynamic consistency checking for our goal-directed method for computing answer sets, under which only those constraints deemed relevant to the partial answer set are tested, allowing inconsistent knowledgebases to be successfully queried. However, the algorithm guarantees that, if a program has at least one consistent answer set, any partial answer set returned will be a subset of some consistent answer set.

FS-rules provide a powerful monotonic extension for Horn clauses that supports monotonic aggregates in recursion by reasoning on the multiplicity of occurrences satisfying existential goals. The least fixpoint semantics, and its equivalent least model semantics, hold for logic programs with FS-rules; moreover, generalized notions of stratification and stable models are easily derived when negated goals are allowed. Finally, the generalization of techniques such as seminaive fixpoint and magic sets, make possible the efficient implementation of DatalogFS, i.e., Datalog with rules with Frequency Support (FS-rules) and stratified negation. A large number of applications that could not be supported efficiently, or could not be expressed at all in stratified Datalog can now be easily expressed and efficiently supported in DatalogFS and a powerful DatalogFS system is now being developed at UCLA.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a popular framework for modelling combinatorial problems. However, ASP cannot be used easily for reasoning about uncertain information. Possibilistic ASP (PASP) is an extension of ASP that combines possibilistic logic and ASP. In PASP a weight is associated with each rule, whereas this weight is interpreted as the certainty with which the conclusion can be established when the body is known to hold. As such, it allows us to model and reason about uncertain information in an intuitive way. In this paper we present new semantics for PASP in which rules are interpreted as constraints on possibility distributions. Special models of these constraints are then identified as possibilistic answer sets. In addition, since ASP is a special case of PASP in which all the rules are entirely certain, we obtain a new characterization of ASP in terms of constraints on possibility distributions. This allows us to uncover a new form of disjunction, called weak disjunction, that has not been previously considered in the literature. In addition to introducing and motivating the semantics of weak disjunction, we also pinpoint its computational complexity. In particular, while the complexity of most reasoning tasks coincides with standard disjunctive ASP, we find that brave reasoning for programs with weak disjunctions is easier.

We introduce a stepping methodology for answer-set programming (ASP) that allows for debugging answer-set programs and is based on the stepwise application of rules. Similar to debugging in imperative languages, where the behaviour of a program is observed during a step-by-step execution, stepping for ASP allows for observing the effects that rule applications have in the computation of an answer set. While the approach is inspired from debugging in imperative programming, it is conceptually different to stepping in other paradigms due to non-determinism and declarativity that are inherent to ASP. In particular, unlike statements in an imperative program that are executed following a strict control flow, there is no predetermined order in which to consider rules in ASP during a computation. In our approach, the user is free to decide which rule to consider active in the next step following his or her intuition. This way, one can focus on interesting parts of the debugging search space. Bugs are detected during stepping by revealing differences between the actual semantics of the program and the expectations of the user. As a solid formal basis for stepping, we develop a framework of computations for answer-set programs. For fully supporting different solver languages, we build our framework on an abstract ASP language that is sufficiently general to capture different solver languages. To this end, we make use of abstract constraints as an established abstraction for popular language constructs such as aggregates. Stepping has been implemented in SeaLion, an integrated development environment for ASP. We illustrate stepping using an example scenario and discuss the stepping plugin of SeaLion. Moreover, we elaborate on methodological aspects and the embedding of stepping in the ASP development process.

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.

The timed concurrent constraint language (tccp in short) is a concurrent logic language based on the simple but powerful concurrent constraint paradigm of Saraswat. In this paradigm, the notion of store-as-value is replaced by the notion of store-as-constraint, which introduces some differences w.r.t. other approaches to concurrency. In this paper, we provide a general framework for the debugging of tccp programs. To this end, we first present a new compact, bottom-up semantics for the language that is well suited for debugging and verification purposes in the context of reactive systems. We also provide an abstract semantics that allows us to effectively implement debugging algorithms based on abstract interpretation. Given a tccp program and a behavior specification, our debugging approach automatically detects whether the program satisfies the specification. This differs from other semi-automatic approaches to debugging and avoids the need to provide symptoms in advance. We show the efficacy of our approach by introducing two illustrative examples. We choose a specific abstract domain and show how we can detect that a program is erroneous.

In answer set programming (ASP), a problem at hand is solved by (i) writing a logic program whose answer sets correspond to the solutions of the problem, and by (ii) computing the answer sets of the program using an answer set solver as a search engine. Typically, a programmer creates a series of gradually improving logic programs for a particular problem when optimizing program length and execution time on a particular solver. This leads the programmer to a meta-level problem of ensuring that the programs are equivalent, i.e., they give rise to the same answer sets. To ease answer set programming at methodological level, we propose a translation-based method for verifying the equivalence of logic programs. The basic idea is to translate logic programs P and Q under consideration into a single logic program EQT(P,Q) whose answer sets (if such exist) yield counter-examples to the equivalence of P and Q. The method is developed here in a slightly more general setting by taking the visibility of atoms properly into account when comparing answer sets. The translation-based approach presented in the paper has been implemented as a translator called lpeq that enables the verification of weak equivalence within the smodels system using the same search engine as for the search of models. Our experiments with lpeq and smodels suggest that establishing the equivalence of logic programs in this way is in certain cases much faster than naive cross-checking of answer sets.

We present a formulation of the problem of probabilistic model checking as one of query evaluation over probabilistic logic programs. To the best of our knowledge, our formulation is the first of its kind, and it covers a rich class of probabilistic models and probabilistic temporal logics. The inference algorithms of existing probabilistic logic-programming systems are well defined only for queries with a finite number of explanations. This restriction prohibits the encoding of probabilistic model checkers, where explanations correspond to executions of the system being model checked. To overcome this restriction, we propose a more general inference algorithm that uses finite generative structures (similar to automata) to represent families of explanations. The inference algorithm computes the probability of a possibly infinite set of explanations directly from the finite generative structure. We have implemented our inference algorithm in XSB Prolog, and use this implementation to encode probabilistic model checkers for a variety of temporal logics, including PCTL and GPL (which subsumes PCTL*). Our experiment results show that, despite the highly declarative nature of their encodings, the model checkers constructed in this manner are competitive with their native implementations.

We describe eclingo, a solver for epistemic logic programs under Gelfond 1991 semantics built upon the Answer Set Programming system clingo. The input language of eclingo uses the syntax extension capabilities of clingo to define subjective literals that, as usual in epistemic logic programs, allow for checking the truth of a regular literal in all or in some of the answer sets of a program. The eclingo solving process follows a guess and check strategy. It first generates potential truth values for subjective literals and, in a second step, it checks the obtained result with respect to the cautious and brave consequences of the program. This process is implemented using the multi-shot functionalities of clingo. We have also implemented some optimisations, aiming at reducing the search space and, therefore, increasing eclingo ’s efficiency in some scenarios. Finally, we compare the efficiency of eclingo with two state-of-the-art solvers for epistemic logic programs on a pair of benchmark scenarios and show that eclingo generally outperforms their obtained results.

In this paper we analyze declarative deterministic and non-deterministic semantics for active rules. In particular, we consider several (partial) stable model semantics, previously defined for deductive rules, such as well-founded, max deterministic, unique total stable model, total stable model and maximal stable model semantics. The semantics of an active program [Ascr ][Pscr ] is given by first rewriting it into a deductive program [Lscr ][Pscr ], then computing a model M defining the declarative semantics of [Lscr ][Pscr ] and, finally, applying ‘consistent’ updates contained in M to the source database. The framework we propose permits a natural integration of deductive and active rules and can also be applied to queries with function symbols or to queries over infinite databases.

We present in this paper a general algorithm for solving first-order formulas in particular theories called decomposable theories. First of all, using special quantifiers, we give a formal characterization of decomposable theories and show some of their properties. Then, we present a general algorithm for solving first-order formulas in any decomposable theory T. The algorithm is given in the form of five rewriting rules. It transforms a first-order formula ϕ, which can possibly contain free variables, into a conjunction φ of solved formulas easily transformable into a Boolean combination of existentially quantified conjunctions of atomic formulas. In particular, if ϕ has no free variables then φ is either the formula true or ¬true. The correctness of our algorithm proves the completeness of the decomposable theories. Finally, we show that the theory of finite or infinite trees is a decomposable theory and give some benchmarks realized by an implementation of our algorithm, solving formulas on two-partner games in with more than 160 nested alternated quantifiers.

Pull-tabbing is an evaluation approach for functional logic computations, based on a graph transformation recently proposed, which avoids making irrevocable nondeterministic choices that would jeopardize the completeness of computations. In contrast to other approaches with this property, it does not require an upfront cloning of a possibly large portion of the choice's context. We formally define the pull-tab transformation, characterize the class of programs for which the transformation is intended, extend the computations in these programs to include the transformation, and prove the correctness of the extended computations.

We propose answer-set programs that specify and compute counterfactual interventions on entities that are input on a classification model. In relation to the outcome of the model, the resulting counterfactual entities serve as a basis for the definition and computation of causality-based explanation scores for the feature values in the entity under classification, namely responsibility scores. The approach and the programs can be applied with black-box models, and also with models that can be specified as logic programs, such as rule-based classifiers. The main focus of this study is on the specification and computation of best counterfactual entities, that is, those that lead to maximum responsibility scores. From them one can read off the explanations as maximum responsibility feature values in the original entity. We also extend the programs to bring into the picture semantic or domain knowledge. We show how the approach could be extended by means of probabilistic methods, and how the underlying probability distributions could be modified through the use of constraints. Several examples of programs written in the syntax of the DLV ASP-solver, and run with it, are shown.

There is an increasing interest in using logic programming to specify and implement distributed algorithms, including a variety of network applications. These are applications where data and computation are distributed among several devices and where, in principle, all the devices can exchange data and share the computational results of the group. In this paper we propose a declarative approach to distributed computing whereby distributed algorithms and communication models can be (i) specified as action theories of fluents and actions; (ii) executed as collections of distributed state machines, where devices are abstracted as (input/output) automata that can exchange messages; and (iii) analysed using existing results on connecting causal theories and Answer Set Programming. Results on the application of our approach to different classes of network protocols are also presented.

We propose a modular method for proving termination of general logic programs (i.e. logic programs with negation). It is based on the notion of acceptable programs, but it allows us to prove termination in a truly modular way. We consider programs consisting of a hierarchy of modules and supply a general result for proving termination by dealing with each module separately. For programs which are in a certain sense well-behaved, namely well-moded or well-typed programs, we derive both a simple verification technique and an iterative proof method. Some examples show how our system allows for greatly simplified proofs.

Different notions of equivalence, such as the prominent notions of strong and uniform equivalence, have been studied in Answer-Set Programming, mainly for the purpose of identifying programs that can serve as substitutes without altering the semantics, for instance in program optimization. Such semantic comparisons are usually characterized by various selections of models in the logic of Here-and-There (HT). For uniform equivalence however, correct characterizations in terms of HT-models can only be obtained for finite theories, respectively programs. In this paper, we show that a selection of countermodels in HT captures uniform equivalence also for infinite theories. This result is turned into coherent characterizations of the different notions of equivalence by countermodels, as well as by a mixture of HT-models and countermodels (so-called equivalence interpretations). Moreover, we generalize the so-called notion of relativized hyperequivalence for programs to propositional theories, and apply the same methodology in order to obtain a semantic characterization which is amenable to infinite settings. This allows for a lifting of the results to first-order theories under a very general semantics given in terms of a quantified version of HT. We thus obtain a general framework for the study of various notions of equivalence for theories under answer-set semantics. Moreover, we prove an expedient property that allows for a simplified treatment of extended signatures, and provide further results for non-ground logic programs. In particular, uniform equivalence coincides under open and ordinary answer-set semantics, and for finite non-ground programs under these semantics, also the usual characterization of uniform equivalence in terms of maximal and total HT-models of the grounding is correct, even for infinite domains, when corresponding ground programs are infinite.

We present trichotomy results characterizing the complexity of reasoning with disjunctive logic programs. To this end, we introduce a certain definition schema for classes of programs based on a set of allowed arities of rules. We show that each such class of programs has a finite representation, and for each of the classes definable in the schema, we characterize the complexity of the existence of an answer set problem. Next, we derive similar characterizations of the complexity of skeptical and credulous reasoning with disjunctive logic programs. Such results are of potential interest. On the one hand, they reveal some reasons responsible for the hardness of computing answer sets. On the other hand, they identify classes of problem instances, for which the problem is “easy” (in P) or “easier than in general” (in NP). We obtain similar results for the complexity of reasoning with disjunctive programs under the supported-model semantics.

Existential rules are Datalog rules extended with existential quantifiers in rule-heads. Three fundamental restriction paradigms that have been studied for ensuring decidability of query answering under existential rules are weak-acyclicity, guardedness and stickiness. Towards the identification of even more expressive decidable languages, several attempts have been conducted to consolidate weak-acyclicity with the other two paradigms. However, it is not clear how guardedness and stickiness can be merged; this is the subject of this paper. A powerful and flexible condition, called tameness, is proposed, which allows us to consolidate in an elegant and uniform way guardedness with stickiness.