Designing agents that reason and act upon the world has always been one of the main objectives of the Artificial Intelligence community. While for planning in “simple” domains the agents can solely rely on facts about the world, in several contexts, e.g., economy, security, justice and politics, the mere knowledge of the world could be insufficient to reach a desired goal. In these scenarios, epistemic reasoning, i.e., reasoning about agents’ beliefs about themselves and about other agents’ beliefs, is essential to design winning strategies. This paper addresses the problem of reasoning in multi-agent epistemic settings exploiting declarative programming techniques. In particular, the paper presents an actual implementation of a multi-shot Answer Set Programming-based planner that can reason in multi-agent epistemic settings, called PLATO (ePistemic muLti-agent Answer seT programming sOlver). The ASP paradigm enables a concise and elegant design of the planner, w.r.t. other imperative implementations, facilitating the development of formal verification of correctness. The paper shows how the planner, exploiting an ad-hoc epistemic state representation and the efficiency of ASP solvers, has competitive performance results on benchmarks collected from the literature.

Answer-Set Programming (ASP) is a powerful and expressive knowledge representation paradigm with a significant number of applications in logic-based AI. The traditional ground-and-solve approach, however, requires ASP programs to be grounded upfront and thus suffers from the so-called grounding bottleneck (i.e., ASP programs easily exhaust all available memory and thus become unsolvable). As a remedy, lazy-grounding ASP solvers have been developed, but many state-of-the-art techniques for grounded ASP solving have not been available to them yet. In this work we present, for the first time, adaptions to the lazy-grounding setting for many important techniques, like restarts, phase saving, domain-independent heuristics, and learned-clause deletion. Furthermore, we investigate their effects and in general observe a large improvement in solving capabilities and also uncover negative effects in certain cases, indicating the need for portfolio solving as known from other solvers.

Efficient decision-making over continuously changing data is essential for many application domains such as cyber-physical systems, industry digitalization, etc. Modern stream reasoning frameworks allow one to model and solve various real-world problems using incremental and continuous evaluation of programs as new data arrives in the stream. Applied techniques use, e.g., Datalog-like materialization or truth maintenance algorithms to avoid costly re-computations, thus ensuring low latency and high throughput of a stream reasoner. However, the expressiveness of existing approaches is quite limited and, e.g., they cannot be used to encode problems with constraints, which often appear in practice. In this paper, we suggest a novel approach that uses the Conflict-Driven Constraint Learning (CDCL) to efficiently update legacy solutions by using intelligent management of learned constraints. In particular, we study the applicability of reinforcement learning to continuously assess the utility of learned constraints computed in previous invocations of the solving algorithm for the current one. Evaluations conducted on real-world reconfiguration problems show that providing a CDCL algorithm with relevant learned constraints from previous iterations results in significant performance improvements of the algorithm in stream reasoning scenarios.

In Probabilistic Logic Programming (PLP) the most commonly studied inference task is to compute the marginal probability of a query given a program. In this paper, we consider two other important tasks in the PLP setting: the Maximum-A-Posteriori (MAP) inference task, which determines the most likely values for a subset of the random variables given evidence on other variables, and the Most Probable Explanation (MPE) task, the instance of MAP where the query variables are the complement of the evidence variables. We present a novel algorithm, included in the PITA reasoner, which tackles these tasks by representing each problem as a Binary Decision Diagram and applying a dynamic programming procedure on it. We compare our algorithm with the version of ProbLog that admits annotated disjunctions and can perform MAP and MPE inference. Experiments on several synthetic datasets show that PITA outperforms ProbLog in many cases.

We focus on the problem of inducing logic programs that explain models learned by the support vector machine (SVM) algorithm. The top-down sequential covering inductive logic programming (ILP) algorithms (e.g., FOIL) apply hill-climbing search using heuristics from information theory. A major issue with this class of algorithms is getting stuck in local optima. In our new approach, however, the data-dependent hill-climbing search is replaced with a model-dependent search where a globally optimal SVM model is trained first, then the algorithm looks into support vectors as the most influential data points in the model, and induces a clause that would cover the support vector and points that are most similar to that support vector. Instead of defining a fixed hypothesis search space, our algorithm makes use of SHAP, an example-specific interpreter in explainable AI, to determine a relevant set of features. This approach yields an algorithm that captures the SVM model’s underlying logic and outperforms other ILP algorithms in terms of the number of induced clauses and classification evaluation metrics.

Concolic testing is a popular software verification technique based on a combination of concrete and symbolic execution. Its main focus is finding bugs and generating test cases with the aim of maximizing code coverage. A previous approach to concolic testing in logic programming was not sound because it only dealt with positive constraints (by means of substitutions) but could not represent negative constraints. In this paper, we present a novel framework for concolic testing of CLP programs that generalizes the previous technique. In the CLP setting, one can represent both positive and negative constraints in a natural way, thus giving rise to a sound and (potentially) more efficient technique. Defining verification and testing techniques for CLP programs is increasingly relevant since this framework is becoming popular as an intermediate representation to analyze programs written in other programming paradigms.

Qualitative reasoning involves expressing and deriving knowledge based on qualitative terms such as natural language expressions, rather than strict mathematical quantities. Well over 40 qualitative calculi have been proposed so far, mostly in the spatial and temporal domains, with several practical applications such as naval traffic monitoring, warehouse process optimisation and robot manipulation. Even if a number of specialised qualitative reasoning tools have been developed so far, an important barrier to the wider adoption of these tools is that only qualitative reasoning is supported natively, when real-world problems most often require a combination of qualitative and other forms of reasoning. In this work, we propose to overcome this barrier by using ASP as a unifying formalism to tackle problems that require qualitative reasoning in addition to non-qualitative reasoning. A family of ASP encodings is proposed which can handle any qualitative calculus with binary relations. These encodings are experimentally evaluated using a real-world dataset based on a case study of determining optimal coverage of telecommunication antennas, and compared with the performance of two well-known dedicated reasoners. Experimental results show that the proposed encodings outperform one of the two reasoners, but fall behind the other, an acceptable trade-off given the added benefits of handling any type of reasoning as well as the interpretability of logic programs.

Recently there has been an increasing interest in frameworks extending Dung’s abstract Argumentation Framework (AF). Popular extensions include bipolar AFs and AFs with recursive attacks and necessary supports. Although the relationships between AF semantics and Partial Stable Models (PSMs) of logic programs has been deeply investigated, this is not the case for more general frameworks extending AF.

In this paper we explore the relationships between AF-based frameworks and PSMs. We show that every AF-based framework Δ can be translated into a logic program PΔ so that the extensions prescribed by different semantics of Δ coincide with subsets of the PSMs of PΔ. We provide a logic programming approach that characterizes, in an elegant and uniform way, the semantics of several AF-based frameworks. This result allows also to define the semantics for new AF-based frameworks, such as AFs with recursive attacks and recursive deductive supports.

The repeated execution of reasoning tasks is desirable in many applicative scenarios, such as stream reasoning and event processing. When using answer set programming in such contexts, one can avoid the iterative generation of ground programs thus achieving a significant payoff in terms of computing time. However, this may require some additional amount of memory and/or the manual addition of operational directives in the declarative knowledge base at hand. We introduce a new strategy for generating series of monotonically growing propositional programs. The proposed overgrounded programs with tailoring (OPTs) can be updated and reused in combination with consecutive inputs. With respect to earlier approaches, our tailored simplification technique reduces the size of instantiated programs. A maintained OPT slowly grows in size from an iteration to another while the update cost decreases, especially in later iterations. In this paper we formally introduce tailored embeddings, a family of equivalence-preserving ground programs which are at the theoretical basis of OPTs and we describe their properties. We then illustrate an OPT update algorithm and report about our implementation and its performance.

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.

In this paper we develop a concept aware multi-preferential semantics for dealing with typicality in description logics, where preferences are associated with concepts, starting from a collection of ranked TBoxes containing defeasible concept inclusions. Preferences are combined to define a preferential interpretation in which defeasible inclusions can be evaluated. The construction of the concept-aware multipreference semantics is related to Brewka’s framework for qualitative preferences. We exploit Answer Set Programming (in particular, asprin) to achieve defeasible reasoning under the multipreference approach for the lightweight description logic ξ$\mathcal L_ \bot ^ + $.

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.

We elaborate upon the theoretical foundations of a metric temporal extension of Answer Set Programming. In analogy to previous extensions of ASP with constructs from Linear Temporal and Dynamic Logic, we accomplish this in the setting of the logic of Here-and-There and its non-monotonic extension, called Equilibrium Logic. More precisely, we develop our logic on the same semantic underpinnings as its predecessors and thus use a simple time domain of bounded time steps. This allows us to compare all variants in a uniform framework and ultimately combine them in a common implementation.

Generalising and re-using knowledge learned while solving one problem instance has been neglected by state-of-the-art answer set solvers. We suggest a new approach that generalises learned nogoods for re-use to speed-up the solving of future problem instances. Our solution combines well-known ASP solving techniques with deductive logic-based machine learning. Solving performance can be improved by adding learned non-ground constraints to the original program. We demonstrate the effects of our method by means of realistic examples, showing that our approach requires low computational cost to learn constraints that yield significant performance benefits in our test cases. These benefits can be seen with ground-and-solve systems as well as lazy-grounding systems. However, ground-and-solve systems suffer from additional grounding overheads, induced by the additional constraints in some cases. By means of conflict minimization, non-minimal learned constraints can be reduced. This can result in significant reductions of grounding and solving efforts, as our experiments show.