This paper describes the process of translating rules that may contain arithmetic operations into the language of first-order logic. It identifies a normal form for which this transformation can be performed in a particularly simple and natural way. Other rules can be converted to this normal form by steps that preserve their meaning under the stable model semantics.

This paper shows that the semantics of programs with aggregates implemented by the solvers clingo and dlv can be characterized as extended First-Order formulas with intensional functions in the logic of Here-and-There. Furthermore, this characterization can be used to study the strong equivalence of programs with aggregates under either semantics. We also present a transformation that reduces the task of checking strong equivalence to reasoning in classical First-Order logic, which serves as a foundation for automating this procedure.

This paper introduces a general framework for generate-and-test-based solvers for epistemic logic programs that can be instantiated with different generate and test programs, and it provides sufficient conditions on those programs for the correctness of the solvers built using this framework. It also introduces a new generator program that incorporates the propagation of epistemic consequences and shows that this can exponentially reduce the number of candidates that need to be tested while only incurring a linear overhead. We implement a new solver based on these theoretical findings and experimentally show that it outperforms existing solvers by achieving a ~3.3x speed-up and solving 87% more instances on well-known benchmarks.

Abstract ANTHEM 2.0 is a tool to aid in the verification of logic programs written in an expressive fragment of CLINGO ’s input language named MINI-GRINGO, which includes arithmetic operations and simple choice rules but not aggregates. It can translate logic programs into formula representations in the logic of here-and-there and analyze properties of logic programs such as tightness. Most importantly, ANTHEM 2.0 can support program verification by invoking first-order theorem provers to confirm that a program adheres to a first-order specification or to establish strong and external equivalence of programs. This paper serves as an overview of the system’s capabilities. We demonstrate how to use ANTHEM 2.0 effectively and interpret its results.

Abstract In answer set programming, two groups of rules are considered strongly equivalent if they have the same meaning in any context. Strong equivalence of two programs can be sometimes established by deriving rules of each program from rules of the other in an appropriate deductive system. This paper shows how to extend this method of proving strong equivalence to programs containing the counting aggregate.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) constitutes nowadays one of the most successful paradigms for practical Knowledge Representation and declarative problem solving. The formal analysis of ASP programs is essential for a rigorous treatment of specifications, the correct construction of solvers and the extension with other representational features. In this paper, we present a syntactic transformation, called the unfolding operator, that allows forgetting an atom in a logic program (under ASP semantics). The main advantage of unfolding is that, unlike other syntactic operators, it is always applicable and guarantees strong persistence, that is, the result preserves the same stable models with respect to any context where the forgotten atom does not occur. The price for its completeness is that the result is an expression that may contain the fork operator. Yet, we illustrate how, in some cases, the application of fork properties may allow us to reduce the fork to a logic program.

This paper contributes to the development of theoretical foundations of answer set programming. Groundbreaking work on the SM operator by Ferraris, Lee, and Lifschitz proposed a definition/semantics for logic (answer set) programs based on a syntactic transformation similar to parallel circumscription. That definition radically differed from its predecessors by using classical (second-order) logic and avoiding reference to either grounding or fixpoints. Yet, the work lacked the formalization of crucial and commonly used answer set programming language constructs called aggregates. In this paper, we present a characterization of logic programs with aggregates based on a many-sorted generalization of the SM operator. This characterization introduces new function symbols for aggregate operations and aggregate elements, whose meaning can be fixed by adding appropriate axioms to the result of the SM transformation. We prove that our characterization coincides with the ASP-Core-2 semantics for logic programs and, if we allow non-positive recursion through aggregates, it coincides with the semantics of the answer set solver CLINGO.

Abstract Program completion is a translation from the language of logic programs into the language of first-order theories. Its original definition has been extended to programs that include integer arithmetic, accept input, and distinguish between output predicates and auxiliary predicates. For tight programs, that generalization of completion is known to match the stable model semantics, which is the basis of answer set programming. We show that the tightness condition in this theorem can be replaced by a less restrictive “local tightness” requirement. From this fact we conclude that the proof assistant anthem-p2p can be used to verify equivalence between locally tight programs.

Splitting a logic program allows us to reduce the task of computing its stable models to similar tasks for its subprograms. This can be used to increase solving performance and to prove the correctness of programs. We generalize the conditions under which this technique is applicable, by considering not only dependencies between predicates but also their arguments and context. This allows splitting programs commonly used in practice to which previous results were not applicable.

Logic programs are a popular formalism for encoding many problems relevant to knowledge representation and reasoning as well as artificial intelligence. However, for modeling rational behavior it is oftentimes required to represent the concepts of knowledge and possibility. Epistemic logic programs (ELPs) is such an extension that enables both concepts, which correspond to being true in all or some possible worlds or stable models. For these programs, the parameter treewidth has recently regained popularity. We present complexity results for the evaluation of key ELP fragments for treewidth, which are exponentially better than known results for full ELPs. Unfortunately, we prove that obtained runtimes can not be significantly improved, assuming the exponential time hypothesis. Our approach defines treewidth-aware reductions between quantified Boolean formulas and ELPs. We also establish that the completion of a program, as used in modern solvers, can be turned treewidth-aware, thereby linearly preserving treewidth.

Theory of strongly equivalent transformations is an essential part of the methodology of representing knowledge in answer set programming. Strong equivalence of two programs can be sometimes characterized as the possibility of deriving the rules of each program from the rules of the other in some deductive system. This paper describes a system with this property for the language mini-GRINGO. The key to the proof is an ω-completeness theorem for the many-sorted logic of here-and-there.

Abstract In this work, we show that both logic programming and abstract argumentation frameworks can be interpreted in terms of Nelson’s constructive logic N4. We do so by formalising, in this logic, two principles that we call noncontradictory inference and strengthened closed world assumption: the first states that no belief can be held based on contradictory evidence while the latter forces both unknown and contradictory evidence to be regarded as false. Using these principles, both logic programming and abstract argumentation frameworks are translated into constructive logic in a modular way and using the object language. Logic programming implication and abstract argumentation supports become, in the translation, a new implication connective following the noncontradictory inference principle. Attacks are then represented by combining this new implication with strong negation. Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).

Abstract 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.

Abstract Theory of stable models is the mathematical basis of answer set programming. Several results in that theory refer to the concept of the positive dependency graph of a logic program. We describe a modification of that concept and show that the new understanding of positive dependency makes it possible to strengthen some of these results.

Abstract This paper presents a rich knowledge representation language aimed at formalizing causal knowledge. This language is used for accurately and directly formalizing common benchmark examples from the literature of actual causality. A definition of cause is presented and used to analyze the actual causes of changes with respect to sequences of actions representing those examples.

The paper presents a characterization of logic programs with aggregates based on many-sorted generalization of operator SM that refers neither to grounding nor to fixpoints. This characterization introduces new symbols for aggregate operations and aggregate elements, whose meaning is fixed by adding appropriate axioms to the result of the SM transformation. We prove that for programs without positive recursion through aggregates our semantics coincides with the semantics of the answer set solver Clingo.

In this research note we present additional results for an earlier published paper [1]. There, we studied the problem of projective strong equivalence (PSE) of logic programs, that is, checking whether two logic programs (or propositional formulas) have the same behaviour (under the stable model semantics) regardless of a common context and ignoring the effect of local auxiliary atoms. PSE is related to another problem called strongly persistent forgetting that consists in keeping a program's behaviour after removing its auxiliary atoms, something that is known to be not always possible in Answer Set Programming. In [1], we introduced a new connective ‘|’ called fork and proved that, in this extended language, it is always possible to forget auxiliary atoms, but at the price of obtaining a result containing forks. We also proved that forks can be translated back to logic programs introducing new hidden auxiliary atoms, but this translation was exponential in the worst case. In this note we provide a new polynomial translation of arbitrary forks into regular programs that allows us to prove that brave and cautious reasoning with forks has the same complexity as that of ordinary (disjunctive) logic programs and paves the way for an efficient implementation of forks. To this aim, we rely on a pair of new PSE invariance properties.

It is well-known that deciding consistency for normal answer set programs (ASP) is NP-complete, thus, as hard as the satisfaction problem for propositional logic (SAT). The exponential time hypothesis (ETH) implies that the best algorithms to solve these problems take exponential time in the worst case. However, accounting for the treewidth, the consistency problem for ASP is slightly harder than SAT: while SAT can be solved by an algorithm that runs in exponential time in the treewidth k, ASP requires exponential time in k · log(k). This extra cost is due to checking that there are no self-supported true atoms due to positive cycles in the program. In this paper, we refine this recent result and show that consistency for ASP can be decided in exponential time in k · log(ι) where ι is a novel measure, bounded by both treewidth k and the size of the largest strongly-connected component of the positive dependency graph of the program. We provide a treewidth-aware reduction from ASP to SAT that adheres to the above limit.

Abstract 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.

Abstract We present a general approach to planning with incomplete information in Answer Set Programming (ASP). More precisely, we consider the problems of conformant and conditional planning with sensing actions and assumptions. We represent planning problems using a simple formalism where logic programs describe the transition function between states, the initial states and the goal states. For solving planning problems, we use Quantified Answer Set Programming (QASP), an extension of ASP with existential and universal quantifiers over atoms that is analogous to Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBFs). We define the language of quantified logic programs and use it to represent the solutions different variants of conformant and conditional planning. On the practical side, we present a translation-based QASP solver that converts quantified logic programs into QBFs and then executes a QBF solver, and we evaluate experimentally the approach on conformant and conditional planning benchmarks.

We elaborate upon the formal foundations of hybrid Answer Set Programming (ASP) and extend its underlying logical framework with aggregate functions over constraint values and variables. This is achieved by introducing the construct of conditional expressions, which allow for considering two alternatives while evaluating constraints. Which alternative is considered is interpretation-dependent and chosen according to an associated condition. We put some emphasis on logic programs with linear constraints and show how common ASP aggregates can be regarded as particular cases of so-called conditional linear constraints. Finally, we introduce a polynomial-size, modular and faithful translation from our framework into regular (condition-free) Constraint ASP, outlining an implementation of conditional aggregates on top of existing hybrid ASP solvers.

This work tackles the problem of checking strong equivalence of logic programs that may contain local auxiliary atoms, to be removed from their stable models and to be forbidden in any external context. We call this property projective strong equivalence (PSE). It has been recently proved that not any logic program containing auxiliary atoms can be reformulated, under PSE, as another logic program or formula without them -- this is known as strongly persistent forgetting. In this paper, we introduce a conservative extension of Equilibrium Logic and its monotonic basis, the logic of Here-and-There, in which we deal with a new connective we call fork. We provide a semantic characterisation of PSE for forks and use it to show that, in this extension, it is always possible to forget auxiliary atoms under strong persistence. We further define when the obtained fork is representable as a regular formula.

Characterizing hybrid ASP solving in a generic way is difficult since one needs to abstract from specific theories. Inspired by lazy SMT solving, this is usually addressed by treating theory atoms as opaque. Unlike this, we propose a slightly more transparent approach that includes an abstract notion of a term. Rather than imposing a syntax on terms, we keep them abstract by stipulating only some basic properties. With this, we further develop a semantic framework for hybrid ASP solving and provide aggregate functions for theory variables that adhere to different semantic principles, show that they generalize existing aggregate semantics in ASP and how we can rely on off-the-shelf hybrid solvers for implementation.

Abstract 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.

Abstract In this paper, we study the problem of formal verification for Answer Set Programming (ASP), namely, obtaining a formal proof showing that the answer sets of a given (non-ground) logic program P correctly correspond to the solutions to the problem encoded by P, regardless of the problem instance. To this aim, we use a formal specification language based on ASP modules, so that each module can be proved to capture some informal aspect of the problem in an isolated way. This specification language relies on a novel definition of (possibly nested, first order) program modules that may incorporate local hidden atoms at different levels. Then, verifying the logic program P amounts to prove some kind of equivalence between P and its modular specification.

Abstract This paper continues the line of research aimed at investigating the relationship between logic programs and first-order theories. We extend the definition of program completion to programs with input and output in a subset of the input language of the ASP grounder gringo, study the relationship between stable models and completion in this context, and describe preliminary experiments with the use of two software tools, anthem and vampire, for verifying the correctness of programs with input and output. Proofs of theorems are based on a lemma that relates the semantics of programs studied in this paper to stable models of first-order formulas.

Abstract A common feature in Answer Set Programming is the use of a second negation, stronger than default negation and sometimes called explicit, strong or classical negation. This explicit negation is normally used in front of atoms, rather than allowing its use as a regular operator. In this paper we consider the arbitrary combination of explicit negation with nested expressions, as those defined by Lifschitz, Tang and Turner. We extend the concept of reduct for this new syntax and then prove that it can be captured by an extension of Equilibrium Logic with this second negation. We study some properties of this variant and compare to the already known combination of Equilibrium Logic with Nelson’s strong negation.

Abstract In a recent line of research, two familiar concepts from logic programming semantics (unfounded sets and splitting) were extrapolated to the case of epistemic logic programs. The property ofepistemic splittingprovides a natural and modular way to understand programs without epistemic cycles but, surprisingly, was only fulfilled by Gelfond’s original semantics (G91), among the many proposals in the literature. On the other hand, G91 may suffer from a kind of self-supported, unfounded derivations when epistemic cycles come into play. Recently, the absence of these derivations was also formalised as a property of epistemic semantics calledfoundedness. Moreover, a first semantics proved to satisfy foundedness was also proposed, the so-calledFounded Autoepistemic Equilibrium Logic(FAEEL). In this paper, we prove that FAEEL also satisfies the epistemic splitting property something that, together with foundedness, was not fulfilled by any other approach up to date. To prove this result, we provide an alternative characterisation of FAEEL as a combination of G91 with a simpler logic we calledFounded Epistemic Equilibrium Logic(FEEL), which is somehow an extrapolation of the stable model semantics to the modal logic S5.

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) approaches to problem-solving and decision-making are becoming more and more complex, leading to a decrease in the understandability of solutions. The European Union’s new General Data Protection Regulation tries to tackle this problem by stipulating a “right to explanation” for decisions made by AI systems. One of the AI paradigms that may be affected by this new regulation is answer set programming (ASP). Thanks to the emergence of efficient solvers, ASP has recently been used for problem-solving in a variety of domains, including medicine, cryptography, and biology. To ensure the successful application of ASP as a problem-solving paradigm in the future, explanations of ASP solutions are crucial. In this survey, we give an overview of approaches that provide an answer to the question ofwhyan answer set is a solution to a given problem, notably off-line justifications, causal graphs, argumentative explanations, and why-not provenance, and highlight their similarities and differences. Moreover, we review methods explaining why a set of literals isnotan answer set or why no solution exists at all.

In this paper, we propose a generalisation of Dung's abstract argumentation framework that allows representing higher-order attacks and supports, that is attacks or supports whose targets are other attacks or supports. We follow the necessary interpretation of the support, based on the intuition that the acceptance of an argument requires the acceptance of each supporter. We propose semantics accounting for acceptability of arguments and validity of interactions, where the standard notion of extension is replaced by a triple of a set of arguments, a set of attacks and a set of supports. Our framework is a conservative generalisation of Argumentation Frameworks with Necessities (AFN). When supports are ignored, Argumentation Frameworks with Recursive Attacks are recovered.

In this paper, we consider SETAFs due to Nielsen and Parsons, an extension of Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks that allow for collective attacks. We first provide a comprehensive analysis of the expressiveness of SETAFs under conflict-free, naive, stable, complete, admissible and preferred semantics. Our analysis shows that SETAFs are strictly more expressive than Dung AFs. Towards a uniform characterization of SETAFs and Dung AFs we provide general results on expressiveness which take the maximum degree of the collective attacks into account. Our results show that, for each k>0, SETAFs that allow for collective attacks of k+1 arguments are more expressive than SETAFs that only allow for collective attacks of at most k arguments.

Abstract In this paper, we propose a variant of Answer Set Programming (ASP) with evaluable functions that extends their application to sets of objects, something that allows a fully logical treatment of aggregates. Formally, we start from the syntax of First Order Logic with equality and the semantics of Quantified Equilibrium Logic with evaluable functions ( ${\rm QEL}^=_{\cal F}$ ). Then, we proceed to incorporate a new kind of logical term,intensional set(a construct commonly used to denote the set of objects characterised by a given formula), and to extend ${\rm QEL}^=_{\cal F}$ semantics for this new type of expression. In our extended approach, intensional sets can be arbitrarily used as predicate or function arguments or even nested inside other intensional sets, just as regular first-order logical terms. As a result, aggregates can be naturally formed by the application of some evaluable function (count,sum,maximum, etc) to a set of objects expressed as an intensional set. This approach has several advantages. First, while other semantics for aggregates depend on some syntactic transformation (either via a reduct or a formula translation), the ${\rm QEL}^=_{\cal F}$ interpretation treats them as regular evaluable functions, providing a compositional semantics and avoiding any kind of syntactic restriction. Second, aggregates can be explicitly defined now within the logical language by the simple addition of formulas that fix their meaning in terms of multiple applications of some (commutative and associative) binary operation. For instance, we can use recursive rules to definesumin terms of integer addition. Last, but not least, we prove that the semantics we obtain for aggregates coincides with the one defined by Gelfond and Zhang for the ${\cal A}\mathit{log}$ language, when we restrict to that syntactic fragment.

Abstract In this paper, we propose an extension of logic programming where each default literal derived from the well-founded model is associated to a justification represented as an algebraic expression. This expression contains both causal explanations (in the form of proof graphs built with rule labels) and terms under the scope of negation that stand for conditions that enable or disable the application of causal rules. Using some examples, we discuss how these new conditions, we respectively callenablersandinhibitors, are intimately related to default negation and have an essentially different nature from regular cause-effect relations. The most important result is a formal comparison to the recent algebraic approaches for justifications in logic programming:Why-not ProvenanceandCausal Graphs. We show that the current approach extends both Why-not Provenance and Causal Graphs justifications under the well-founded semantics and, as a byproduct, we also establish a formal relation between these two approaches.

In this work we propose an extension of logic programming, under the stable model semantics, and the action language ℬ𝒞 where rule bodies and causal laws may contain a new kind of literal, that we call causal literal, that allows us to inspect the causal justifications of standard atoms. To this ai m, we extend a recently proposed semantics where each atom belonging to a stable model is associated with a justification in the form of an algebraic expression (which corresponds to a logical proof built with rule labels). In particular, we use causal literals for evaluating and deriving new conclusions from statements like “A has been sufficient to cause B.” We also use the proposed semantics to extend the action language ℬ𝒞 with causal literals and, by some examples, show how this action language is useful for expressing a high level representation of some typical Knowledge Representation examples involving causal knowledge.

Abstract In this paper, we study an extension of the stable model semantics for disjunctive logic programs where each true atom in a model is associated with an algebraic expression (in terms of rule labels) that represents its justifications. As in our previous work for non-disjunctive programs, these justifications are obtained in a purely semantic way, by algebraic operations (product, addition and application) on a lattice of causal values. Our new definition extends the concept ofcausal stable modelto disjunctive logic programs and satisfies that each (standard) stable model corresponds to a disjoint class of causal stable models sharing the same truth assignments, but possibly varying the obtained explanations. We provide a pair of illustrative examples showing the behaviour of the new semantics and discuss the need of introducing a new type of rule, which we callcausal-choice. This type of rule intuitively captures the idea of “Amay causeB” and, when causal information is disregarded, amounts to a usual choice rule under the standard stable model semantics.

Abstract We present an extension of Logic Programming (under stable models semantics) that, not only allows concluding whether a true atom is a cause of another atom, but alsoderiving new conclusionsfrom these causal-effect relations. This is expressive enough to capture informal rules like “if some agent's actions have beennecessaryto cause an eventEthen conclude atomcaused( ,E),” something that, to the best of our knowledge, had not been formalised in the literature. To this aim, we start from a first attempt that proposed extending the syntax of logic programs with so-calledcausal literals. These causal literals are expressions that can be used in rule bodies and allow inspecting the derivation of some atomAin the program with respect to some query function ψ. Depending on how these query functions are defined, we can model different types of causal relations such as sufficient, necessary or contributory causes, for instance. The initial approach was specifically focused on monotonic query functions. This was enough to cover sufficient cause-effect relations but, unfortunately, necessary and contributory are essentiallynon-monotonic. In this work, we define a semantics for non-monotonic causal literals showing that, not only extends the stable model semantics for normal logic programs, but also preserves many of its usual desirable properties for the extended syntax. Using this new semantics, we provide precise definitions ofnecessaryandcontributorycausal relations and briefly explain their behaviour on a pair of typical examples from the Knowledge Representation literature.

Abstract In this work we propose a multi-valued extension of logic programs under the stable models semantics where each true atom in a model is associated with a set of justifications. These justifications are expressed in terms ofcausal graphsformed by rule labels and edges that represent their application ordering. For positive programs, we show that the causal justifications obtained for a given atom have a direct correspondence to (relevant) syntactic proofs of that atom using the program rules involved in the graphs. The most interesting contribution is that this causal information is obtained in a purely semantic way, by algebraic operations (product, sum and application) on a lattice of causal values whose ordering relation expresses when a justification is stronger than another. Finally, for programs with negation, we define the concept ofcausal stable modelby introducing an analogous transformation to Gelfond and Lifschitz's program reduct. As a result, default negation behaves as “absence of proof” and no justification is derived from negative literals, something that turns out convenient for elaboration tolerance, as we explain with a running example.