We propose and study algorithms to compute minimal models, stable models and answer sets of $t$-CNF theories, and normal and disjunctive $t$-programs. We are especially interested in algorithms with non-trivial worst-case performance bounds. The bulk of the paper is concerned with the classes of 2- and 3-CNF theories, and normal and disjunctive 2- and 3-programs, for which we obtain significantly stronger results than those implied by our general considerations. We show that one can find all minimal models of 2-CNF theories and all answer sets of disjunctive 2-programs in time $O(m1\mbox{.}4422\mbox{..}^n)$. Our main results concern computing stable models of normal 3-programs, minimal models of 3-CNF theories and answer sets of disjunctive 3-programs. We design algorithms that run in time $O(m1\mbox{.}6701\mbox{..}^n)$, in the case of the first problem, and in time $O(mn^2 2\mbox{.}2782\mbox{..}^n)$, in the case of the latter two. All these bounds improve by exponential factors the best algorithms known previously. We also obtain closely related upper bounds on the number of minimal models, stable models and answer sets a $t$-CNF theory, a normal $t$-program or a disjunctive $t$-program may have.

Logic programs with ordered disjunction (LPODs) extend classical logic programs with the capability of expressing alternatives with decreasing degrees of preference in the heads of program rules. Despite the fact that the operational meaning of ordered disjunction is clear, there exists an important open issue regarding its semantics. In particular, there does not exist a purely model-theoretic approach for determining the most preferred models of an LPOD. At present, the selection of the most preferred models is performed using a technique that is not based exclusively on the models of the program and in certain cases produces counterintuitive results. We provide a novel, model-theoretic semantics for LPODs, which uses an additional truth value in order to identify the most preferred models of a program. We demonstrate that the proposed approach overcomes the shortcomings of the traditional semantics of LPODs. Moreover, the new approach can be used to define the semantics of a natural class of logic programs that can have both ordered and classical disjunctions in the heads of clauses. This allows programs that can express not only strict levels of preferences but also alternatives that are equally preferred.

Aggregates provide a concise way to express complex knowledge. The problem of selecting an appropriate formalization of aggregates for answer set programming (ASP) remains unsettled. This paper revisits it from the viewpoint of Approximation Fixpoint Theory (AFT). We introduce an AFT formalization equivalent with the Gelfond–Lifschitz reduct for basic ASP programs and we extend it to handle aggregates. We analyze how existing approaches relate to our framework. We hope this work sheds some new light on the issue of a proper formalization of aggregates.

Epistemic logic programs constitute an extension of the stable model semantics to deal with new constructs called subjective literals. Informally speaking, a subjective literal allows checking whether some objective literal is true in all or some stable models. As it can be imagined, the associated semantics has proved to be non-trivial, since the truth of subjective literals may interfere with the set of stable models it is supposed to query. As a consequence, no clear agreement has been reached and different semantic proposals have been made in the literature. Unfortunately, comparison among these proposals has been limited to a study of their effect on individual examples, rather than identifying general properties to be checked. In this paper, we propose an extension of the well-known splitting property for logic programs to the epistemic case. We formally define when an arbitrary semantics satisfies the epistemic splitting property and examine some of the consequences that can be derived from that, including its relation to conformant planning and to epistemic constraints. Interestingly, we prove (through counterexamples) that most of the existing approaches fail to fulfill the epistemic splitting property, except the original semantics proposed by Gelfond 1991 and a recent proposal by the authors, called Founded Autoepistemic Equilibrium Logic.

Management of chronic diseases, such as heart failure, is a major public health problem. A standard approach to managing chronic diseases by medical community is to have a committee of experts develop guidelines that all physicians should follow. Due to their complexity, these guidelines are difficult to implement and are adopted slowly by the medical community at large. We have developed a physician advisory system that codes the entire set of clinical practice guidelines for managing heart failure using answer set programming. In this paper, we show how abductive reasoning can be deployed to find missing symptoms and conditions that the patient must exhibit in order for a treatment prescribed by a physician to work effectively. Thus, if a physician does not make an appropriate recommendation or makes a non-adherent recommendation, our system will advise the physician about symptoms and conditions that must be in effect for that recommendation to apply. It is under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.

The logic programming paradigm provides the basis for a new intensional view of higher-order notions. This view is realized primarily by employing the terms of a typed lambda calculus as representational devices and by using a richer form of unification for probing their structures. These additions have important meta-programming applications but they also pose non-trivial implementation problems. One issue concerns the machine representation of lambda terms suitable to their intended use: an adequate encoding must facilitate comparison operations over terms in addition to supporting the usual reduction computation. Another aspect relates to the treatment of a unification operation that has a branching character and that sometimes calls for the delaying of the solution of unification problems. A final issue concerns the execution of goals whose structures become apparent only in the course of computation. These various problems are exposed in this paper and solutions to them are described. A satisfactory representation for lambda terms is developed by exploiting the nameless notation of de Bruijn as well as explicit encodings of substitutions. Special mechanisms are molded into the structure of traditional Prolog implementations to support branching in unification and carrying of unification problems over other computation steps; a premium is placed in this context on exploiting determinism and on emulating usual first-order behaviour. An extended compilation model is presented that treats higher-order unification and also handles dynamically emergent goals. The ideas described here have been employed in the Teyjus implementation of the $\lambda$Prolog language, a fact that is used to obtain a preliminary assessment of their efficacy.

During the last decade, Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) have become a major specification and implementation language for logical, constraint-based algorithms and intelligent applications (as witnessed for example by several hundred publications available online that mention CHR). Algorithms are often specified using inference rules, rewrite rules, sequents, proof rules, or logical axioms that can be almost directly written in CHR.

Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (ADFs) are argumentation frameworks where each node is associated with an acceptance condition. This allows us to model different types of dependencies as supports and attacks. Previous studies provided a translation from Normal Logic Programs (NLPs) to ADFs and proved the stable models semantics for a normal logic program has an equivalent semantics to that of the corresponding ADF. However, these studies failed in identifying a semantics for ADFs equivalent to a three-valued semantics (as partial stable models and well-founded models) for NLPs. In this work, we focus on a fragment of ADFs, called Attacking Dialectical Frameworks (ADF+s), and provide a translation from NLPs to ADF+s robust enough to guarantee the equivalence between partial stable models, well-founded models, regular models, stable models semantics for NLPs and respectively complete models, grounded models, preferred models, stable models for ADFs. In addition, we define a new semantics for ADF+s, called L-stable, and show it is equivalent to the L-stable semantics for NLPs.

Uncertain information is being taken into account in an increasing number of application fields. In the meantime, abduction has been proved a powerful tool for handling hypothetical reasoning and incomplete knowledge. Probabilistic logical models are a suitable framework to handle uncertain information, and in the last decade many probabilistic logical languages have been proposed, as well as inference and learning systems for them. In the realm of Abductive Logic Programming (ALP), a variety of proof procedures have been defined as well. In this paper, we consider a richer logic language, coping with probabilistic abduction with variables. In particular, we consider an ALP program enriched with integrity constraints à la IFF, possibly annotated with a probability value. We first present the overall abductive language and its semantics according to the Distribution Semantics. We then introduce a proof procedure, obtained by extending one previously presented, and prove its soundness and completeness.

Refactoring is modifying a program without changing its external behavior. In this paper, we make the concept of external behavior precise for a simple answer set programming language. Then we describe a proof assistant for the task of verifying that refactoring a program in that language is performed correctly.

Constraint answer set programming is a promising research direction that integrates answer set programming with constraint processing. It is often informally related to the field of satisfiability modulo theories. Yet, the exact formal link is obscured as the terminology and concepts used in these two research areas differ. In this paper, we connect these two research areas by uncovering the precise formal relation between them. We believe that this work will boost the cross-fertilization of the theoretical foundations and the existing solving methods in both areas. As a step in this direction, we provide a translation from constraint answer set programs with integer linear constraints to satisfiability modulo linear integer arithmetic that paves the way to utilizing modern satisfiability modulo theories solvers for computing answer sets of constraint answer set programs.

We propose a timed and soft extension of Concurrent Constraint Programming. The time extension is based on the hypothesis of bounded asynchrony: The computation takes a bounded period of time and is measured by a discrete global clock. Action prefixing is then considered as the syntactic marker that distinguishes a time instant from the next one. Supported by soft constraints instead of crisp ones, tell and ask agents are now equipped with a preference (or consistency) threshold, which is used to determine their success or suspension. In this paper, we provide a language to describe the agents' behavior, together with its operational and denotational semantics, for which we also prove the compositionality and correctness properties. After presenting a semantics using maximal parallelism of actions, we also describe a version for their interleaving on a single processor (with maximal parallelism for time elapsing). Coordinating agents that need to take decisions on both preference values and time events may benefit from this language.

We describe an algorithm for proving termination of programs abstracted to systems of monotonicity constraints in the integer domain. Monotonicity constraints are a nontrivial extension of the well-known size-change termination method. While deciding termination for systems of monotonicity constraints is PSPACE complete, we focus on a well-defined and significant subset, which we call MCNP (for “monotonicity constraints in NP”), designed to be amenable to a SAT-based solution. Our technique is based on the search for a special type of ranking function defined in terms of bounded differences between multisets of integer values. We describe the application of our approach as the back end for the termination analysis of Java Bytecode. At the front end, systems of monotonicity constraints are obtained by abstracting information, using two different termination analyzers: AProVE and COSTA. Preliminary results reveal that our approach provides a good trade-off between precision and cost of analysis.

This paper studies the stable model semantics of logic programs with (abstract) constraint atoms and their properties. We introduce a succinct abstract representation of these constraint atoms in which a constraint atom is represented compactly. We show two applications. First, under this representation of constraint atoms, we generalize the Gelfond–Lifschitz transformation and apply it to define stable models (also called answer sets) for logic programs with arbitrary constraint atoms. The resulting semantics turns out to coincide with the one defined by Son et al. (2007), which is based on a fixpoint approach. One advantage of our approach is that it can be applied, in a natural way, to define stable models for disjunctive logic programs with constraint atoms, which may appear in the disjunctive head as well as in the body of a rule. As a result, our approach to the stable model semantics for logic programs with constraint atoms generalizes a number of previous approaches. Second, we show that our abstract representation of constraint atoms provides a means to characterize dependencies of atoms in a program with constraint atoms, so that some standard characterizations and properties relying on these dependencies in the past for logic programs with ordinary atoms can be extended to logic programs with constraint atoms.

Approximation fixpoint theory (AFT) provides an algebraic framework for the study of fixpoints of operators on bilattices and has found its applications in characterizing semantics for various classes of logic programs and nonmonotonic languages. In this paper, we show one more application of this kind: the alternating fixpoint operator by Knorr et al. for the study of the well-founded semantics for hybrid minimal knowledge and negation as failure (MKNF) knowledge bases is in fact an approximator of AFT in disguise, which, thanks to the abstraction power of AFT, characterizes not only the well-founded semantics but also two-valued as well as three-valued semantics for hybrid MKNF knowledge bases. Furthermore, we show an improved approximator for these knowledge bases, of which the least stable fixpoint is information richer than the one formulated from Knorr et al.’s construction. This leads to an improved computation for the well-founded semantics. This work is built on an extension of AFT that supports consistent as well as inconsistent pairs in the induced product bilattice, to deal with inconsistencies that arise in the context of hybrid MKNF knowledge bases. This part of the work can be considered generalizing the original AFT from symmetric approximators to arbitrary approximators.

Computer Aided Design systems provide tools for building and manipulating models of solid objects. Some also provide access to programming languages so that parametrised designs can be expressed. There is a sharp distinction, therefore, between building models, a concrete graphical editing activity, and programming, an abstract, textual, algorithm-construction activity. The recently proposed Language for Structured Design (LSD) was motivated by a desire to combine the design and programming activities in one language. LSD achieves this by extending a visual logic programming language to incorporate the notions of solids and operations on solids. Here we investigate another aspect of the LSD approach, namely, that by using visual logic programming as the engine to drive the parametrised assembly of objects, we also gain the powerful symbolic problem-solving capability that is the forté of logic programming languages. This allows the designer/programmer to work at a higher level, giving declarative specifications of a design in order to obtain the design descriptions. Hence LSD integrates problem solving, design synthesis, and prototype assembly in a single homogeneous programming/design environment. We demonstrate this specification-to-final-assembly capability using the masterkeying problem for designing systems of locks and keys.

Epistemic logic programs (ELPs) are an extension of answer set programming (ASP) with epistemic operators that allow for a form of meta-reasoning, that is, reasoning over multiple possible worlds. Existing ELP solving approaches generally rely on making multiple calls to an ASP solver in order to evaluate the ELP. However, in this paper, we show that there also exists a direct translation from ELPs into non-ground ASP with bounded arity. The resulting ASP program can thus be solved in a single shot. We then implement this encoding method, using recently proposed techniques to handle large, non-ground ASP rules, into the prototype ELP solving system “selp,” which we present in this paper. This solver exhibits competitive performance on a set of ELP benchmark instances.

Weighted Logic is a powerful tool for the specification of calculations over semirings that depend on qualitative information. Using a novel combination of Weighted Logic and Here-and-There (HT) Logic, in which this dependence is based on intuitionistic grounds, we introduce Answer Set Programming with Algebraic Constraints (ASP($\mathcal A \mathcal C$)), where rules may contain constraints that compare semiring values to weighted formula evaluations. Such constraints provide streamlined access to a manifold of constructs available in ASP, like aggregates, choice constraints, and arithmetic operators. They extend some of them and provide a generic framework for defining programs with algebraic computation, which can be fruitfully used e.g. for provenance semantics of datalog programs. While undecidable in general, expressive fragments of ASP($\mathcal A \mathcal C$) can be exploited for effective problem solving in a rich framework.

In Constraint Programming, a portfolio solver combines a variety of different constraint solvers for solving a given problem. This fairly recent approach enables to significantly boost the performance of single solvers, especially when multicore architectures are exploited. In this work, we give a brief overview of the portfolio solver sunny-cp, and we discuss its performance in the MiniZinc Challenge—the annual international competition for Constraint Programming solvers—where it won two gold medals in 2015 and 2016.

In everyday life it happens that a person has to reason out what other peoplethink and how they behave, in order to achieve his goals. In other words, anindividual may be required to adapt his behavior by reasoning about the others'mental state. In this paper we focus on a knowledge-representation languagederived from logic programming which both supports the representation of mentalstates of individual communities and provides each with the capability ofreasoning about others' mental states and acting accordingly. The proposedsemantics is shown to be translatable into stable model semantics of logicprograms with aggregates.