In order to achieve competitive performance, abstract machines for Prolog and related languages end up being large and intricate, and incorporate sophisticated optimizations, both at the design and at the implementation levels. At the same time, efficiency considerations make it necessary to use low-level languages in their implementation. This makes them laborious to code, optimize, and, especially, maintain and extend. Writing the abstract machine (and ancillary code) in a higher-level language can help tame this inherent complexity. We show how the semantics of most basic components of an efficient virtual machine for Prolog can be described using (a variant of) Prolog. These descriptions are then compiled to C and assembled to build a complete bytecode emulator. Thanks to the high-level of the language used and its closeness to Prolog, the abstract machine description can be manipulated using standard Prolog compilation and optimization techniques with relative ease. We also show how, by applying program transformations selectively, we obtain abstract machine implementations whose performance can match and even exceed that of state-of-the-art, highly-tuned, hand-crafted emulators.

An answer set is a plain set of literals which has no further structure that would explain why certain literals are part of it and why others are not. We show how argumentation theory can help to explain why a literal is or is not contained in a given answer set by defining two justification methods, both of which make use of the correspondence between answer sets of a logic program and stable extensions of the assumption-based argumentation (ABA) framework constructed from the same logic program. Attack Trees justify a literal in argumentation-theoretic terms, i.e. using arguments and attacks between them, whereas ABA-Based Answer Set Justifications express the same justification structure in logic programming terms, that is using literals and their relationships. Interestingly, an ABA-Based Answer Set Justification corresponds to an admissible fragment of the answer set in question, and an Attack Tree corresponds to an admissible fragment of the stable extension corresponding to this answer set.

We address the problem of belief revision of logic programs (LPs), i.e., how to incorporate to a LP P a new LP Q. Based on the structure of SE interpretations, Delgrande et al. (2008. Proc. of the 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'08), 411–421; 2013b. Proc. of the 12th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'13), 264–276) adapted the well-known AGM framework (Alchourrón et al. 1985. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 2, 510–530) to LP revision. They identified the rational behavior of LP revision and introduced some specific operators. In this paper, a constructive characterization of all rational LP revision operators is given in terms of orderings over propositional interpretations with some further conditions specific to SE interpretations. It provides an intuitive, complete procedure for the construction of all rational LP revision operators and makes easier the comprehension of their semantic and computational properties. We give a particular consideration to LPs of very general form, i.e., the generalized logic programs (GLPs). We show that every rational GLP revision operator is derived from a propositional revision operator satisfying the original AGM postulates. Interestingly, the further conditions specific to GLP revision are independent from the propositional revision operator on which a GLP revision operator is based. Taking advantage of our characterization result, we embed the GLP revision operators into structures of Boolean lattices, that allow us to bring to light some potential weaknesses in the adapted AGM postulates. To illustrate our claim, we introduce and characterize axiomatically two specific classes of (rational) GLP revision operators which arguably have a drastic behavior. We additionally consider two more restricted forms of LPs, i.e., the disjunctive logic programs (DLPs) and the normal logic programs (NLPs) and adapt our characterization result to disjunctive logic program and normal logic program revision operators.

Figure 3 was left out in the article (Gottlob et al. 2013). The figure that is given there as figure 3 should in fact be figure 4. Further, the reference to figure 3 on the 4th line of page 889 should be a reference to figure 4. The correct figure 3 (missing in the paper) is supplied below. We apologise for this error.