We analyze how symmetries can be used to compress structures (also known as interpretations) onto a smaller domain without loss of information. This analysis suggests the possibility to solve satisfiability problems in the compressed domain for better performance. Thus, we propose a 2-step novel method: (i) the sentence to be satisfied is automatically translated into an equisatisfiable sentence over a ``lifted'' vocabulary that allows domain compression; (ii) satisfiability of the lifted sentence is checked by growing the (initially unknown) compressed domain until a satisfying structure is found. The key issue is to ensure that this satisfying structure can always be expanded into an uncompressed structure that satisfies the original sentence to be satisfied. We present an adequate translation for sentences in typed first-order logic extended with aggregates. Our experimental evaluation shows large speedups for generative configuration problems. The method also has applications in the verification of software operating on complex data structures. Our results justify further research in automatic translation of sentences for symmetry reduction.

Abstract Many practical problems can be understood as the search for a state of affairs that extends a fixed partial state of affairs, the environment, while satisfying certain conditions that are formally specified. Such problems are found in, for example, engineering, law or economics. We study this class of problems in a context where some of the relevant information about the environment is not known by the user at the start of the search. During the search, the user may consider tentative solutions that make implicit hypotheses about these unknowns. To ensure that the solution is appropriate, these hypotheses must be verified by observing the environment. Furthermore, we assume that, in addition to knowledge of what constitutes a solution, knowledge of general laws of the environment is also present. We formally define partial solutions with enough verified facts to guarantee the existence of complete and appropriate solutions. Additionally, we propose an interactive system to assist the user in their search by determining (1) which hypotheses implicit in a tentative solution must be verified in the environment, and (2) which observations can bring useful information for the search. We present an efficient method to over-approximate the set of relevant information, and evaluate our implementation.

Abstract Justification theory is a general framework for the definition of semantics of rule-based languages that has a high explanatory potential. Nested justification systems, first introduced by Denecker et al., allow for the composition of justification systems. This notion of nesting thus enables the modular definition of semantics of rule-based languages, and increases the representational capacities of justification theory. As we show in this paper, the original characterization of semantics for nested justification systems leads to the loss of information relevant for explanations. In view of this problem, we provide an alternative characterization of their semantics and show that it is equivalent to the original one. Furthermore, we show how nested justification systems allow representing fixpoint definitions.

Abstract 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.

Approximation Fixpoint Theory (AFT) and Justification Theory (JT) are two frameworks to unify logical formalisms. AFT studies semantics in terms of fixpoints of lattice operators, and JT in terms of so-called justifications, which are explanations of why certain facts do or do not hold in a model. While the approaches differ, the frameworks were designed with similar goals in mind, namely to study the different semantics that arise in (mainly) non-monotonic logics. The First contribution of our current paper is to provide a formal link between the two frameworks. To be precise, we show that every justification frame induces an approximator and that this mapping from JT to AFT preserves all major semantics. The second contribution exploits this correspondence to extend JT with a novel class of semantics, namely ultimate semantics: we formally show that ultimate semantics can be obtained in JT by a syntactic transformation on the justification frame, essentially performing some sort of resolution on the rules.

Abstract Justification theory is a unifying semantic framework. While it has its roots in non-monotonic logics, it can be applied to various areas in computer science, especially in explainable reasoning; its most central concept is a justification: an explanation why a property holds (or does not hold) in a model. In this paper, we continue the study of justification theory by means of three major contributions. The first is studying the relation between justification theory and game theory. We show that justification frameworks can be seen as a special type of games. The established connection provides the theoretical foundations for our next two contributions. The second contribution is studying under which condition two different dialects of justification theory (graphs as explanations vs trees as explanations) coincide. The third contribution is establishing a precise criterion of when a semantics induced by justification theory yields consistent results. In the past proving that such semantics were consistent took cumbersome and elaborate proofs. We show that these criteria are indeed satisfied for all common semantics of logic programming.

In many knowledge representation formalisms, a constructive semantics is defined based on sequential applications of rules or of a semantic operator. These constructions often share the property that rule applications must be delayed until it is safe to do so: until it is known that the condition that triggers the rule will remain to hold. This intuition occurs for instance in the well-founded semantics of logic programs and in autoepistemic logic. In this paper, we formally define the safety criterion algebraically. We study properties of so-called safe inductions and apply our theory to logic programming and autoepistemic logic. For the latter, we show that safe inductions manage to capture the intended meaning of a class of theories on which all classical constructive semantics fail.

Abstract The knowledge base (KB) paradigm aims to express domain knowledge in a rich formal language, and to use this domain knowledge as a KB to solve various problems and tasks that arise in the domain by applying multiple forms of inference. As such, the paradigm applies a strict separation of concerns between information and problem solving. In this paper, we analyze the principles and feasibility of the KB paradigm in the context of an important class of applications: interactive configuration problems. In interactive configuration problems, a configuration of interrelated objects under constraints is searched, where the system assists the user in reaching an intended configuration. It is widely recognized in industry that good software solutions for these problems are very difficult to develop. We investigate such problems from the perspective of the KB paradigm. We show that multiple functionalities in this domain can be achieved by applying different forms of logical inferences on a formal specification of the configuration domain. We report on a proof of concept of this approach in a real-life application with a banking company.

In ownership-based access control frameworks with the possibility of delegating permissions and administrative rights, chains of delegated accesses will form. There are different ways to treat these delegation chains when revoking rights, which give rise to different revocation schemes. One possibility studied in the literature is to revoke rights by issuing negative authorizations, meant to ensure that the revocation is resilient to a later reissuing of the rights, and to resolve conflicts between principals by giving precedence to predecessors, i.e. principals that come earlier in the delegation chain. However, the effects of negative authorizations have been defined differently by different authors. Having identified three definitions of this effect from the literature, the first contribution of this paper is to point out that two of these three definitions pose a security threat. However, avoiding this security threat comes at a price: We prove that with the safe definition of the effect of negative authorizations, deciding whether a principal does have access to a resource is an NP-complete decision problem. We discuss two limitations that can be imposed on an access-control system in order to reduce the complexity of the problem back to a polynomial complexity: Limiting the length of delegation chains to an integer m reduces the runtime complexity of determining access to O(nm), and requiring that principals form a hierarchy that graph-theoretically forms a rooted tree makes this decision problem solvable in quadratic runtime. Finally we discuss an approach that can mitigate the complexity problem in practice without fully getting rid of NP-completeness.

In the past, compelling arguments in favour of the well-founded semantics for autoepistemic logic have been presented. In this article, we show that for certain classes of theories, this semantics fails to identify the unique intended model. We solve this problem by refining the well-founded semantics. We develop our work in approximation fixpoint theory, an abstract algebraical study of semantics of nonmonotonic logics. As such, our results also apply to logic programming, default logic, Dung’s argumentation frameworks, and abstract dialectical frameworks.

Abstract Symmetry in combinatorial problems is an extensively studied topic. We continue this research in the context of model expansion problems, with the aim of automating the workflow of detecting and breaking symmetry. We focus onlocal domain symmetry, which is induced by permutations of domain elements, and which can be detected on a first-order level. As such, our work is a continuation of the symmetry exploitation techniques of model generation systems, while it differs from more recent symmetry breaking techniques in answer set programming which detect symmetry on ground programs. Our main contributions are sufficient conditions for symmetry of model expansion problems, the identification oflocal domain interchangeability, which can often be broken completely, and efficient symmetry detection algorithms for both local domain interchangeability as well as local domain symmetry in general. Our approach is implemented in the model expansion system IDP, and we present experimental results showcasing the strong and weak points of our approach compared tosbass, a symmetry breaking technique for answer set programming.

Finding satisfying assignments for the variables involved in a set of constraints can be cast as a (bounded) model generation problem: search for (bounded) models of a theory in some logic. The state-of-the-art approach for bounded model generation for rich knowledge representation languages like ASP and FO(.) and a CSP modeling language such as Zinc, is ground-and-solve: reduce the theory to a ground or propositional one and apply a search algorithm to the resulting theory. An important bottleneck is the blow-up of the size of the theory caused by the grounding phase. Lazily grounding the theory during search is a way to overcome this bottleneck. We present a theoretical framework and an implementation in the context of the FO(.) knowledge representation language. Instead of grounding all parts of a theory, justifications are derived for some parts of it. Given a partial assignment for the grounded part of the theory and valid justifications for the formulas of the non-grounded part, the justifications provide a recipe to construct a complete assignment that satisfies the non-grounded part. When a justification for a particular formula becomes invalid during search, a new one is derived; if that fails, the formula is split in a part to be grounded and a part that can be justified. Experimental results illustrate the power and generality of this approach.

Abstract This paper provides a gentle introduction to problem-solving with the IDP3 system. The core of IDP3 is a finite model generator that supports first-order logic enriched with types, inductive definitions, aggregates and partial functions. It offers its users a modeling language that is a slight extension of predicate logic and allows them to solve a wide range of search problems. Apart from a small introductory example, applications are selected from problems that arose within machine learning and data mining research. These research areas have recently shown a strong interest in declarative modeling and constraint-solving as opposed to algorithmic approaches. The paper illustrates that the IDP3 system can be a valuable tool for researchers with such an interest. The first problem is in the domain of stemmatology, a domain of philology concerned with the relationship between surviving variant versions of text. The second problem is about a somewhat related problem within biology where phylogenetic trees are used to represent the evolution of species. The third and final problem concerns the classical problem of learning a minimal automaton consistent with a given set of strings. For this last problem, we show that the performance of our solution comes very close to that of the state-of-the art solution. For each of these applications, we analyze the problem, illustrate the development of a logic-based model and explore how alternatives can affect the performance.

Abstract There is a growing need for abstractions in logic specification languages such as FO(·) and ASP. One technique to achieve these abstractions are templates (sometimes called macros). While the semantics of templates are virtually always described through a syntactical rewriting scheme, we present an alternative view on templates as second order definitions. To extend the existing definition construct of FO(·) to second order, we introduce a powerful compositional framework for defining logics by modular integration of logic constructs specified as pairs of one syntactical and one semantical inductive rule. We use the framework to build a logic of nested second order definitions suitable to express templates. We show that under suitable restrictions, the view of templates as macros is semantically correct and that adding them does not extend the descriptive complexity of the base logic, which is in line with results of existing approaches.

Recently, FO(C), the integration of C-LOG with classical logic, was introduced as a knowledge representation language. Up to this point, no systems exist that perform inference on FO(C), and very little is known about properties of inference in FO(C). In this paper, we study both of the above problems. We define normal forms for FO(C), one of which corresponds to FO(ID). We define transformations between these normal forms, and show that, using these transformations, several inference tasks for FO(C) can be reduced to inference tasks for FO(ID), for which solvers exist. We implemented this transformation and hence, created the first system that performs inference in FO(C). We also provide results about the complexity of reasoning in FO(C).

Abstract Dynamic systems play a central role in fields such as planning, verification, and databases. Fragmented throughout these fields, we find a multitude of languages to formally specify dynamic systems and a multitude of systems to reason on such specifications. Often, such systems are bound to one specific language and one specific inference task. It is troublesome that performing several inference tasks on the same knowledge requires translations of your specification to other languages. In this paper we study whether it is possible to perform a broad set of well-studied inference tasks on one specification. More concretely, we extend IDP3with several inferences from fields concerned with dynamic specifications.

The traditional approach to Model Expansion (MX) is to reduce the theory to a propositional language and apply a search algorithm to the resulting theory. Function symbols are typically replaced by predicate symbols representing the graph of the function, an operation that blows up the reduced theory. In this paper, we present an improved approach to handle function symbols in a ground-and-solve methodology, building on ideas from Constraint Programming. We do so in the context of FO(.)IDP, the knowledge representation language that extends First-Order Logic (FO) with, among others, inductive definitions, arithmetic and aggregates. An MX algorithm is developed, consisting of (i) a grounding algorithm for FO(.)^IDP, parametrised by the function symbols allowed to occur in the reduced theory, and (ii) a search algorithm for unrestricted, ground FO(.)^IDP. The ideas are implemented in the IDP knowledge-base system and experimental evaluation shows that both more compact groundings and improved search performance are obtained.

In Constraint Programming, constraint propagation is a basic component of constraint satisfaction solvers. Here we study constraint propagation as a basic form of inference in the context of first-order logic (FO) and extensions with inductive definitions (FO(ID)) and aggregates (FO(AGG)). In a first, semantic approach, a theory of propagators and constraint propagation is developed for theories in the context of three-valued interpretations. We present an algorithm with polynomial-time data complexity. We show that constraint propagation in this manner can be represented by a datalog program. In a second, symbolic approach, the semantic algorithm is lifted to a constraint propagation algorithm in symbolic structures , symbolic representations of classes of structures. The third part of the article is an overview of existing and potential applications of constraint propagation for model generation, grounding, interactive search problems, approximate methods for ∃∀SO problems, and approximate query answering in incomplete databases.

For constraint programming, many well performing dynamic symmetry breaking techniques have been devised. For propositional satisfiability solving, dynamic symmetry breaking is still either slower or less general than static symmetry breaking. This paper presents Symmetry Propagation, which is an improvement to Lightweight Dynamic Symmetry Breaking, a dynamic symmetry breaking approach from CP. Symmetry Propagation uses any given symmetry as a propagator, and as a result is a general symmetry breaking technique. Experiments with an implementation in the SAT solver Minisat show that on many benchmarks, Symmetry Propagation outperforms the state-of-the-art static symmetry breaking method Shatter.

This paper considers the fragment ∃∀SO of second-order logic. Many interesting problems, such as conformant planning, can be naturally expressed as finite domain satisfiability problems of this logic. Such satisfiability problems are computationally hard (ΣP2) and many of these problems are often solved approximately. In this paper, we develop a general approximative method, i.e., a sound but incomplete method, for solving ∃∀SO satisfiability problems. We use a syntactic representation of a constraint propagation method for first-order logic to transform such an ∃∀SO satisfiability problem to an ∃SO(ID) satisfiability problem (second-order logic, extended with inductive definitions). The finite domain satisfiability problem for the latter language is in NP and can be handled by several existing solvers. Inductive definitions are a powerful knowledge representation tool, and this moti- vates us to also approximate ∃∀SO(ID) problems. In order to do this, we first show how to perform propagation on such inductive definitions. Next, we use this to approximate ∃∀SO(ID) satisfiability problems. All this provides a general theoretical framework for a number of approximative methods in the literature. Moreover, we also show how we can use this framework for solving practical useful problems, such as conformant planning, in an effective way.

Grounding is the task of reducing a first-order theory and finite domain to an equivalent propositional theory. It is used as preprocessing phase in many logic-based reasoning systems. Such systems provide a rich first-order input language to a user and can rely on efficient propositional solvers to perform the actual reasoning. Besides a first-order theory and finite domain, the input for grounders contains in many applications also additional data. By exploiting this data, the size of the grounder's output can often be reduced significantly. A common practice to improve the efficiency of a grounder in this context is by manually adding semantically redundant information to the input theory, indicating where and when the grounder should exploit the data. In this paper we present a method to compute and add such redundant information automatically. Our method therefore simplifies the task of writing input theories that can be grounded efficiently by current systems. We first present our method for classical first-order logic (FO) theories. Then we extend it to FO(ID), the extension of FO with inductive definitions, which allows for more concise and comprehensive input theories. We discuss implementation issues and experimentally validate the practical applicability of our method.

The Closed World Assumption (CWA) on databases expresses the assumption that an atom not in the database is false. This assumption is applicable only in cases where the database has complete knowledge about the domain of discourse. In this article, we investigate locally closed databases, that is: databases that are sound but partially incomplete about their domain. Such databases consist of a standard database instance, augmented with a collection of Local Closed World Assumptions (LCWAs). A LCWA is a “local” form of the CWA, expressing that a database relation is complete in a certain area, called a window of expertise . In this work, we study locally closed databases both from a knowledge representation and from a computational perspective. At the representation level, the approach taken in this article distinguishes between the data that is conveyed by a database and the metaknowledge about the area in which the data is complete. We study the semantics of the LCWA's and relate it to several knowledge representation formalisms. At the reasoning level, we study the complexity of, and algorithms for two basic reasoning tasks: computing certain and possible answers to queries and determining whether a database has complete knowledge on a query. As the complexity of these tasks is unacceptably high, we develop efficient approximate methods for query answering. We also prove that for useful classes of queries and locally closed databases, these methods are optimal , and thus they solve the original query in a tractable way. As a result, we obtain classes of queries and locally closed databases for which query answering is tractable.

Abstract We introduce fixpoint definitions, a rule-based reformulation of fixpoint constructs. The logic FO(FD), an extension of classical logic with fixpoint definitions, is defined. We illustrate the relation between FO(FD) and FO(ID), which is developed as an integration of two knowledge representation paradigms. The satisfiability problem for FO(FD) is investigated by first reducing FO(FD) to difference logic and then using solvers for difference logic. These reductions are evaluated in the computation of models for FO(FD) theories representing fairness conditions and we provide potential applications of FO(FD).

There are many reasons why software can be hard to implement. For important classes of applications, the main source of complexity is the domain knowledge that is involved. One such class is that of configuration software, which serves to assist a user in making choices in accordance with certain constraints. For instance, consider an application that helps students compose a study program that complies with all relevant university regulations. The reason why this may be difficult to implement is that these regulations can get quite complicated, making them hard to handle, at least for imperative programming methods. A better approach might be to follow the paradigm of a knowledge base system: explicitly represent the domain knowledge in a declarative way, and implement the behavior of the application by performing various logical inference methods on it. Doing this well, however, requires that a number of different components be got right. Most importantly, we need an expressive and purely declarative knowledge representation language, together with a set of useful inference methods. In this paper, we present a framework for implementing this kind of software, based on a rich extension of first-order logic.

Abstract This paper develops a logical language for representing probabilistic causal laws. Our interest in such a language is two-fold. First, it can be motivated as a fundamental study of the representation of causal knowledge. Causality has an inherent dynamic aspect, which has been studied at the semantical level by Shafer in his framework of probability trees. In such a dynamic context, where the evolution of a domain over time is considered, the idea of a causal law as something which guides this evolution is quite natural. In our formalization, a set of probabilistic causal laws can be used to represent a class of probability trees in a concise, flexible and modular way. In this way, our work extends Shafer's by offering a convenient logical representation for his semantical objects. Second, this language also has relevance for the area of probabilistic logic programming. In particular, we prove that the formal semantics of a theory in our language can be equivalently defined as a probability distribution over the well-founded models of certain logic programs, rendering it formally quite similar to existing languages such as ICL or PRISM. Because we can motivate and explain our language in a completely self-contained way as a representation of probabilistic causal laws, this provides a new way of explaining the intuitions behind such probabilistic logic programs: we can say precisely which knowledge such a program expresses, in terms that are equally understandable by a non-logician. Moreover, we also obtain an additional piece of knowledge representation methodology for probabilistic logic programs, by showing how they can express probabilistic causal laws.

Well-known principles of induction include monotone induction and different sorts of nonmonotone induction such as inflationary induction, induction over well-founded sets and iterated induction. In this work, we define a logic formalizing induction over well-founded sets and monotone and iterated induction. Just as the principle of positive induction has been formalized in FO(LFP), and the principle of inflationary induction has been formalized in FO(IFP), this article formalizes the principle of iterated induction in a new logic for Nonmonotone Inductive Definitions (ID-logic). The semantics of the logic is strongly influenced by the well-founded semantics of logic programming. This article discusses the formalisation of different forms of (non-)monotone induction by the well-founded semantics and illustrates the use of the logic for formalizing mathematical and common-sense knowledge. To model different types of induction found in mathematics, we define several subclasses of definitions, and show that they are correctly formalized by the well-founded semantics. We also present translations into classical first or second order logic. We develop modularity and totality results and demonstrate their use to analyze and simplify complex definitions. We illustrate the use of the logic for temporal reasoning. The logic formally extends Logic Programming, Abductive Logic Programming and Datalog, and thus formalizes the view on these formalisms as logics of (generalized) inductive definitions.

status: Published

Abstract In this paper, we present a framework for the semantics and the computation of aggregates in the context of logic programming. In our study, an aggregate can be an arbitrary interpreted second order predicate or function. We define extensions of the Kripke-Kleene, the well-founded and the stable semantics for aggregate programs. The semantics is based on the concept of a three-valued immediate consequence operator of an aggregate program. Such an operator approximates the standard two-valued immediate consequence operator of the program, and induces a unique Kripke-Kleene model, a unique well-founded model and a collection of stable models. We study different ways of defining such operators and thus obtain a framework of semantics, offering different trade-offs between precision and tractability . In particular, we investigate conditions on the operator that guarantee that the computation of the three types of semantics remains on the same level as for logic programs without aggregates. Other results show that, in practice, even efficient three-valued immediate consequence operators which are very low in the precision hierarchy, still provide optimal precision.

It is well known that, under certain conditions, it is possible to split logic programs under stable model semantics, that is, to divide such a program into a number of different “levels”, such that the models of the entire program can be constructed by incrementally constructing models for each level. Similar results exist for other nonmonotonic formalisms, such as auto-epistemic logic and default logic. In this work, we present a general, algebraic splitting theory for logics with a fixpoint semantics. Together with the framework of approximation theory , a general fixpoint theory for arbitrary operators, this gives us a uniform and powerful way of deriving splitting results for each logic with a fixpoint semantics. We demonstrate the usefulness of these results, by generalizing existing results for logic programming, auto-epistemic logic and default logic.

Abstract: We introduce an abductive method for a coherent integration of independent data-sources. The idea is to compute a list of data-facts that should be inserted to the amalgamated database or retracted from it in order to restore its consistency. This method is implemented by an abductive solver, called Asystem, that applies SLDNFA-resolution on a meta-theory that relates different, possibly contradicting, input databases. We also give a pure model-theoretic analysis of the possible ways to `recover' consistent data from an inconsistent database in terms of those models of the database that exhibit as minimal inconsistent information as reasonably possible. This allows us to characterize the `recovered databases' in terms of the `preferred' (i.e., most consistent) models of the theory. The outcome is an abductive-based application that is sound and complete with respect to a corresponding model-based, preferential semantics, and -- to the best of our knowledge -- is more expressive (thus more general) than any other implementation of coherent integration of databases.

We introduce a general method for paraconsistent reasoning in the context of classical logic. A standard technique for paraconsistent reasoning on inconsistent classical theories is by shifting to multiple-valued logics. We show how these multiple-valued theories can be ‘shifted back’ to two-valued classical theories through a polynomial transformation, and how preferential reasoning based on multiple-valued logic can be represented by classical circumscription-like axioms. By applying this process we provide new ways of implementing multiple-valued paraconsistent reasoning. Standard multiple-valued reasoning can thus be performed through theorem provers for classical logic, and multiple-valued preferential reasoning can be implemented using algorithms for processing circumscriptive theories (such as DLS and SCAN).

Logic programming has been introduced as programming in the Horn clause subset of first-order logic. This view breaks down for the negation as failure inference rule. To overcome the problem, one line of research has been to view a logic program as a set of iff-definitions. A second approach was to identify a unique canonical, preferred , or intended model among the models of the program and to appeal to common sense to validate the choice of such model. Another line of research developed the view of logic programming as a nonmonotonic reasoning formalism strongly related to Default Logic and Autoepistemic Logic. These competing approaches have resulted in some confusion about the declarative meaning of logic programming. This paper investigates the problem and proposes an alternative epistemological foundation for the canonical model approach, which is not based on common sense but on a solid mathematical information principle. The thesis is developed that logic programming can be understood as a natural and general logic of inductive definitions . In particular, logic programs with negation represent nonmonotone inductive definitions . It is argued that this thesis results in an alternative justification of the well-founded model as the unique intended model of the logic program. In addition, it equips logic programs with an easy-to-comprehend meaning that corresponds very well with the intuitions of programmers.

Recently, Gelfond and Lifschitz presented a formal language for representing incomplete knowledge on actions and states, and a sound translation from this language to extended logic programming. We present an alternative translation to abductive logic programming with integrity constraints and prove the soundness and completeness. In addition, we show how an abductive procedure can be used, not only for explanation, but also for deduction and proving satisfiability under uncertainty. From a more general perspective, this work can be viewed as a—successful—experiment in the declarative representation of and automated reasoning on incomplete knowledge using abductive logic programming.

This article presents the theory and implementation of an artificial intelligence planner, CHICA. CHICA is a non-linear, domain independent planner based on techniques of computational logic. The representation language of the planner is Horn clause logic which is used to model event calculus, a logical theory of changing properties over time. The reasoning component is an abductive extension of SLDNF resolution for generating assumptions to prove a given goal. In event calculus, this procedure generates a plan of events and temporal relations necessary to prove the planning goal. CHICA uses domain contraints and techniques from contraint logic programming to efficiently implement inequality, as well as a specialized module to evaluate temporal relations. CHICA's generic search algorithm lets the implementor of a planning domain define a particular search strategy and specify domain heuristics to prune the search space. CHICA has solved a number of planning problems successfully: multiple robot block world problems, the assembly of a flashlight, and a room decoration problem. Extensions to classical Al-planning can be solved within the same framework, such as plan execution and replanning.