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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Temporal Equilibrium Logic (TEL) [1] is a promising framework that extends the knowledge representation and reasoning capabilities of Answer Set Programming with temporal operators in the style of LTL. To our knowledge it is the first nonmonotonic logic that accommodates fully the syntax of a standard temporal logic (specifically LTL) without requiring further constructions. This paper provides a systematic complexity analysis for the (consistency) problem of checking the existence of a temporal equilibrium model of a TEL formula. It was previously shown that this problem in the general case lies somewhere between PSPACE and EXPSPACE. Here we establish a lower bound matching the EXPSPACE upper bound in [2]. Additionally we analyse the complexity for various natural subclasses of TEL formulas, identifying both tractable and intractable fragments. Finally the paper offers some new insights on the logic LTL by addressing satisfiability for minimal LTL models. The complexity results obtained highlight a substantial difference between interpreting LTL over finite or infinite words.

Abstract In this paper we provide an alternative semantics for Equilibrium Logic and its monotonic basis, the logic of Here-and-There (also known as Gödel'sG3logic) that relies on the idea ofdenotationof a formula, that is, a function that collects the set of models of that formula. Using the three-valued logicG3as a starting point and an ordering relation (for which equilibrium/stable models are minimal elements) we provide several elementary operations for sets of interpretations. By analysing structural properties of the denotation of formulas, we show some expressiveness results forG3such as, for instance, that conjunction is not expressible in terms of the other connectives. Moreover, the denotational semantics allows us to capture the set of equilibrium models of a formula with a simple and compact set expression. We also use this semantics to provide several formal definitions for entailment relations that are usual in the literature, and further introduce a new one calledstrong entailment. We say that α strongly entails β when the equilibrium models of α ∧ γ are also equilibrium models of β ∧ γ for any context γ. We also provide a characterisation of strong entailment in terms of the denotational semantics, and give an example of a sufficient condition that can be applied in some cases.

As a doxastic counterpart to epistemic logic based on S5 we study the modal logic KSD that can be viewed as an approach to modelling a kind of objective and fair belief. We apply KSD to the problem of minimal belief and develop an alternative approach to nonmonotonic modal logic using a weaker concept of expansion. This corresponds to a certain minimal kind of KSD model and yields a new type of nonmonotonic doxastic reasoning.

Abstract Equilibrium logic is an approach to non-monotonic reasoning that extends the stable-model and answer-set semantics for logic programs. In particular, it includes the general case of nested logic programs, where arbitrary Boolean combinations are permitted in heads and bodies of rules, as special kinds of theories. In this paper, we present polynomial reductions of the main reasoning tasks associated with equilibrium logic and nested logic programs into quantified propositional logic, an extension of classical propositional logic where quantifications over atomic formulas are permitted. Thus, quantified propositional logic is a fragment of second-order logic, and its formulas are usually referred to as quantified Boolean formulas (QBFs). We provide reductions not only for decision problems, but also for the central semantical concepts of equilibrium logic and nested logic programs. In particular, our encodings map a given decision problem into some QBF such that the latter is valid precisely in case the former holds. The basic tasks we deal with here are the consistency problem, brave reasoning and skeptical reasoning. Additionally, we also provide encodings for testing equivalence of theories or programs under different notions of equivalence, viz. ordinary, strong and uniform equivalence. For all considered reasoning tasks, we analyse their computational complexity and give strict complexity bounds. Hereby, our encodings yield upper bounds in a direct manner. Besides this useful feature, our approach has the following benefits: First, our encodings yield a uniform axiomatisation for a variety of problems in a common language. Second, extant solvers for QBFs can be used as back-end inference engines to realise implementations of the encoded task in a rapid prototyping manner. Third, our axiomatisations also allow us to straightforwardly relate equilibrium logic with circumscription.

A logic program Π 1 is said to be equivalent to a logic program Π 2 in the sense of the answer set semantics if Π 1 and Π 2 have the same answer sets. We are interested in the following stronger condition: for every logic program, Π, Π 1 , ∪ Π has the same answer sets as Π 2 ∪ Π. The study of strong equivalence is important, because we learn from it how one can simplify a part of a logic program without looking at the rest of it. The main theorem shows that the verification of strong equivalence can be accomplished by cheching the equivalence of formulas in a monotonic logic, called the logic of here-and-there, which is intermediate between classical logic and intuitionistic logic.