Relational autocompletion is the problem of automatically filling out some missing values in multi-relational data. We tackle this problem within the probabilistic logic programming framework of Distributional Clauses (DCs), which supports both discrete and continuous probability distributions. Within this framework, we introduce DiceML – an approach to learn both the structure and the parameters of DC programs from relational data (with possibly missing data). To realize this, DiceML integrates statistical modeling and DCs with rule learning. The distinguishing features of DiceML are that it (1) tackles autocompletion in relational data, (2) learns DCs extended with statistical models, (3) deals with both discrete and continuous distributions, (4) can exploit background knowledge, and (5) uses an expectation–maximization-based (EM) algorithm to cope with missing data. The empirical results show the promise of the approach, even when there is missing data.

The Operating Room Scheduling (ORS) problem is the task of assigning patients to operating rooms (ORs), taking into account different specialties, lengths, and priority scores of each planned surgery, OR session durations, and the availability of beds for the entire length of stay (LOS) both in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and in the wards. A proper solution to the ORS problem is of primary importance for the healthcare service quality and the satisfaction of patients in hospital environments. In this paper we first present a solution to the problem based on Answer Set Programming (ASP). The solution is tested on benchmarks with realistic sizes and parameters, on three scenarios for the target length on 5-day scheduling, common in small–medium-sized hospitals, and results show that ASP is a suitable solving methodology for the ORS problem in such setting. Then, we also performed a scalability analysis on the schedule length up to 15 days, which still shows the suitability of our solution also on longer plan horizons. Moreover, we also present an ASP solution for the rescheduling problem, that is, when the offline schedule cannot be completed for some reason. Finally, we introduce a web framework for managing ORS problems via ASP that allows a user to insert the main parameters of the problem, solve a specific instance, and show results graphically in real time.

This paper introduces $\tt{{Presto}}$ , a symbolic partial evaluator for Maude’s rewriting logic theories that can improve system analysis and verification. In $\tt{{Presto}}$ , the automated optimization of a conditional rewrite theory $\mathcal{R}$ (whose rules define the concurrent transitions of a system) is achieved by partially evaluating, with respect to the rules of $\mathcal{R}$ , an underlying, companion equational logic theory $\mathcal{E}$ that specifies the algebraic structure of the system states of $\mathcal{R}$ . This can be particularly useful for specializing an overly general equational theory $\mathcal{E}$ whose operators may obey complex combinations of associativity, commutativity, and/or identity axioms, when being plugged into a host rewrite theory $\mathcal{R}$ as happens, for instance, in protocol analysis, where sophisticated equational theories for cryptography are used. $\tt{{Presto}}$ implements different unfolding operators that are based on folding variant narrowing (the symbolic engine of Maude’s equational theories). When combined with an appropriate abstraction algorithm, they allow the specialization to be adapted to the theory termination behavior and bring significant improvement while ensuring strong correctness and termination of the specialization. We demonstrate the effectiveness of $\tt{{Presto}}$ in several examples of protocol analysis where it achieves a significant speed-up. Actually, the transformation provided by $\tt{{Presto}}$ may cut down an infinite folding variant narrowing space to a finite one, and moreover, some of the costly algebraic axioms and rule conditions may be eliminated as well. As far as we know, this is the first partial evaluator for Maude that respects the semantics of functional, logic, concurrent, and object-oriented computations.

Multi-core and highly connected architectures have become ubiquitous, and this has brought renewed interest in language-based approaches to the exploitation of parallelism. Since its inception, logic programming has been recognized as a programming paradigm with great potential for automated exploitation of parallelism. The comprehensive survey of the first twenty years of research in parallel logic programming, published in 2001, has served since as a fundamental reference to researchers and developers. The contents are quite valid today, but at the same time the field has continued evolving at a fast pace in the years that have followed. Many of these achievements and ongoing research have been driven by the rapid pace of technological innovation, that has led to advances such as very large clusters, the wide diffusion of multi-core processors, the game-changing role of general-purpose graphic processing units, and the ubiquitous adoption of cloud computing. This has been paralleled by significant advances within logic programming, such as tabling, more powerful static analysis and verification, the rapid growth of Answer Set Programming, and in general, more mature implementations and systems. This survey provides a review of the research in parallel logic programming covering the period since 2001, thus providing a natural continuation of the previous survey. In order to keep the survey self-contained, it restricts its attention to parallelization of the major logic programming languages (Prolog, Datalog, Answer Set Programming) and with an emphasis on automated parallelization and preservation of the sequential observable semantics of such languages. The goal of the survey is to serve not only as a reference for researchers and developers of logic programming systems but also as engaging reading for anyone interested in logic and as a useful source for researchers in parallel systems outside logic programming.

We address the problem of verifying that the functions of a program meet their contracts, specified by pre/postconditions. We follow an approach based on constrained Horn clauses (CHCs) by which the verification problem is reduced to the problem of checking satisfiability of a set of clauses derived from the given program and contracts. We consider programs that manipulate algebraic data types (ADTs) and a class of contracts specified by catamorphisms, that is, functions defined by simple recursion schemata on the given ADTs. We show by several examples that state-of-the-art CHC satisfiability tools are not effective at solving the satisfiability problems obtained by direct translation of the contracts into CHCs. To overcome this difficulty, we propose a transformation technique that removes the ADT terms from CHCs and derives new sets of clauses that work on basic sorts only, such as integers and booleans. Thus, when using the derived CHCs there is no need for induction rules on ADTs. We prove that the transformation is sound, that is, if the derived set of CHCs is satisfiable, then so is the original set. We also prove that the transformation always terminates for the class of contracts specified by catamorphisms. Finally, we present the experimental results obtained by an implementation of our technique when verifying many non-trivial contracts for ADT manipulating programs.

Reasoning on defeasible knowledge is a topic of interest in the area of description logics, as it is related to the need of representing exceptional instances in knowledge bases. In this direction, in our previous works we presented a framework for representing (contextualized) OWL RL knowledge bases with a notion of justified exceptions on defeasible axioms: reasoning in such framework is realized by a translation into ASP programs. The resulting reasoning process for OWL RL, however, introduces a complex encoding in order to capture reasoning on the negative information needed for reasoning on exceptions. In this paper, we apply the justified exception approach to knowledge bases in , that is, the language underlying OWL QL. We provide a definition for knowledge bases with defeasible axioms and study their semantic and computational properties. In particular, we study the effects of exceptions over unnamed individuals. The limited form of axioms allows us to formulate a simpler ASP encoding, where reasoning on negative information is managed by direct rules. The resulting materialization method gives rise to a complete reasoning procedure for instance checking in with defeasible axioms.1

This paper surveys recent work on applying analysis and transformation techniques that originate in the field of constraint logic programming (CLP) to the problem of verifying software systems. We present specialization-based techniques for translating verification problems for different programming languages, and in general software systems, into satisfiability problems for constrained Horn clauses (CHCs), a term that has become popular in the verification field to refer to CLP programs. Then, we describe static analysis techniques for CHCs that may be used for inferring relevant program properties, such as loop invariants. We also give an overview of some transformation techniques based on specialization and fold/unfold rules, which are useful for improving the effectiveness of CHC satisfiability tools. Finally, we discuss future developments in applying these techniques.

With help of a compact Prolog-based theorem prover for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic, we synthesize minimal assumptions under which a given formula formula becomes a theorem. After applying our synthesis algorithm to cover basic abductive reasoning mechanisms, we synthesize conjunctions of literals that mimic rows of truth tables in classical or intermediate logics and we abduce conditional hypotheses that turn the theorems of classical or intermediate logics into theorems in intuitionistic logic. One step further, we generalize our abductive reasoning mechanism to synthesize more expressive sequent premises using a minimal set of canonical formulas, to which arbitrary formulas in the calculus can be reduced while preserving their provability. Organized as a self-contained literate Prolog program, the paper supports interactive exploration of its content and ensures full replicability of our results.

In this note, we use Kunen’s notion of a signing to establish two theorems about the well-founded semantics of logic programs, in the case where we are interested in only (say) the positive literals of a predicate p that are consequences of the program. The first theorem identifies a class of programs for which the well-founded and Fitting semantics coincide for the positive part of p. The second theorem shows that if a program has a signing, then computing the positive part of p under the well-founded semantics requires the computation of only one part of each predicate. This theorem suggests an analysis for query answering under the well-founded semantics. In the process of proving these results, we use an alternative formulation of the well-founded semantics of logic programs, which might be of independent interest.

Approximation fixpoint theory (AFT) provides an algebraic framework for the study of fixpoints of operators on bilattices and has found its applications in characterizing semantics for various classes of logic programs and nonmonotonic languages. In this paper, we show one more application of this kind: the alternating fixpoint operator by Knorr et al. for the study of the well-founded semantics for hybrid minimal knowledge and negation as failure (MKNF) knowledge bases is in fact an approximator of AFT in disguise, which, thanks to the abstraction power of AFT, characterizes not only the well-founded semantics but also two-valued as well as three-valued semantics for hybrid MKNF knowledge bases. Furthermore, we show an improved approximator for these knowledge bases, of which the least stable fixpoint is information richer than the one formulated from Knorr et al.’s construction. This leads to an improved computation for the well-founded semantics. This work is built on an extension of AFT that supports consistent as well as inconsistent pairs in the induced product bilattice, to deal with inconsistencies that arise in the context of hybrid MKNF knowledge bases. This part of the work can be considered generalizing the original AFT from symmetric approximators to arbitrary approximators.

Bounded treewidth is one of the most cited combinatorial invariants in the literature. It was also applied for solving several counting problems efficiently. A canonical counting problem is #Sat, which asks to count the satisfying assignments of a Boolean formula. Recent work shows that benchmarking instances for #Sat often have reasonably small treewidth. This paper deals with counting problems for instances of small treewidth. We introduce a general framework to solve counting questions based on state-of-the-art database management systems (DBMSs). Our framework takes explicitly advantage of small treewidth by solving instances using dynamic programming (DP) on tree decompositions (TD). Therefore, we implement the concept of DP into a DBMS (PostgreSQL), since DP algorithms are already often given in terms of table manipulations in theory. This allows for elegant specifications of DP algorithms and the use of SQL to manipulate records and tables, which gives us a natural approach to bring DP algorithms into practice. To the best of our knowledge, we present the first approach to employ a DBMS for algorithms on TDs. A key advantage of our approach is that DBMSs naturally allow for dealing with huge tables with a limited amount of main memory (RAM).

The language of epistemic specifications and epistemic logic programs extends disjunctive logic programs under the stable model semantics with modal constructs called subjective literals. Using subjective literals, it is possible to check whether a regular literal is true in every or some stable models of the program, those models, in this context also called belief sets, being collected in a set called world view. This allows for representing, within the language, whether some proposition should be understood accordingly to the open or the closed world assumption. Several attempts for capturing the intuitions underlying the language by means of a formal semantics were given, resulting in a multitude of proposals that makes it difficult to understand the current state of the art. In this article, we provide an overview of the inception of the field and the knowledge representation and reasoning tasks it is suitable for. We also provide a detailed analysis of properties of proposed semantics, and an outlook of challenges to be tackled by future research in the area.

Logic Programs with Ordered Disjunction (LPODs) extend classical logic programs with the capability of expressing preferential disjunctions in the heads of program rules. The initial semantics of LPODs, although simple and quite intuitive, is not purely model-theoretic. As a result, certain properties of programs appear non-trivial to formalize in purely logical terms. For example, the current characterization of strong equivalence for LPODs, does not coincide with logical equivalence in some specific logic. This comes in sharp contrast with the well-known characterization of strong equivalence for classical logic programs, which coincides with logical equivalence in the logic of here-and-there. In this paper we obtain a purely logical characterization of strong equivalence for LPODs as logical equivalence in a four-valued logic. Moreover, we provide a new proof of the coNP-completeness of strong equivalence for LPODs, which has an interest in its own right since it relies on the special structure of such programs. Our results are based on the recent logical semantics of LPODs, a fact which we believe indicates that this new semantics may prove to be a useful tool in the further study of LPODs.

In answer set programming, two groups of rules are considered strongly equivalent if they have the same meaning in any context. In some cases, strong equivalence of programs in the input language of the grounder gringo can be established by deriving rules of each program from rules of the other. The possibility of such proofs has been demonstrated for a subset of that language that includes comparisons, arithmetic operations, and simple choice rules, but not aggregates. This method is extended here to a class of programs in which some uses of the #count aggregate are allowed.

Building Information Modeling (BIM) produces three-dimensional object-oriented models of buildings combining the geometrical information with a wide range of properties about materials, products, safety, to name just a few. BIM is slowly but inevitably revolutionizing the architecture, engineering, and construction industry. Buildings need to be compliant with regulations about stability, safety, and environmental impact. Manual compliance checking is tedious and error-prone, and amending flaws discovered only at construction time causes huge additional costs and delays. Several tools can check BIM models for conformance with rules/guidelines. For example, Singapore’s CORENET e-Submission System checks fire safety. But since the current BIM exchange format only contains basic information about building objects, a separate, ad-hoc model pre-processing is required to determine, for example, evacuation routes. Moreover, they face difficulties in adapting existing built-in rules and/or adding new ones (to cater for building regulations, that can vary not only among countries but also among parts of the same city), if at all possible. We propose the use of logic-based executable formalisms (CLP and Constraint ASP) to couple BIM models with advanced knowledge representation and reasoning capabilities. Previous experience shows that such formalisms can be used to uniformly capture and reason with knowledge (including ambiguity) in a large variety of domains. Additionally, incorporating checking within design tools makes it possible to ensure that models are rule-compliant at every step. This also prevents erroneous designs from having to be (partially) redone, which is also costly and burdensome. To validate our proposal, we implemented a preliminary reasoner under CLP(Q/R) and ASP with constraints and evaluated it with several BIM models.

Weighted knowledge bases for description logics with typicality have been recently considered under a “concept-wise” multipreference semantics (in both the two-valued and fuzzy case), as the basis of a logical semantics of multilayer perceptrons (MLPs). In this paper we consider weighted conditional $\mathcal{ALC}$ knowledge bases with typicality in the finitely many-valued case, through three different semantic constructions. For the boolean fragment $\mathcal{LC}$ of $\mathcal{ALC}$ we exploit answer set programming and asprin for reasoning with the concept-wise multipreference entailment under a $\varphi$ -coherent semantics, suitable to characterize the stationary states of MLPs. As a proof of concept, we experiment the proposed approach for checking properties of trained MLPs.

Many industrial applications require finding solutions to challenging combinatorial problems. Efficient elimination of symmetric solution candidates is one of the key enablers for high-performance solving. However, existing model-based approaches for symmetry breaking are limited to problems for which a set of representative and easily solvable instances is available, which is often not the case in practical applications. This work extends the learning framework and implementation of a model-based approach for Answer Set Programming to overcome these limitations and address challenging problems, such as the Partner Units Problem. In particular, we incorporate a new conflict analysis algorithm in the Inductive Logic Programming system ILASP, redefine the learning task, and suggest a new example generation method to scale up the approach. The experiments conducted for different kinds of Partner Units Problem instances demonstrate the applicability of our approach and the computational benefits due to the first-order constraints learned.

We present a neuro-symbolic visual question answering (VQA) pipeline for CLEVR, which is a well-known dataset that consists of pictures showing scenes with objects and questions related to them. Our pipeline covers (i) training neural networks for object classification and bounding-box prediction of the CLEVR scenes, (ii) statistical analysis on the distribution of prediction values of the neural networks to determine a threshold for high-confidence predictions, and (iii) a translation of CLEVR questions and network predictions that pass confidence thresholds into logic programmes so that we can compute the answers using an answer-set programming solver. By exploiting choice rules, we consider deterministic and non-deterministic scene encodings. Our experiments show that the non-deterministic scene encoding achieves good results even if the neural networks are trained rather poorly in comparison with the deterministic approach. This is important for building robust VQA systems if network predictions are less-than perfect. Furthermore, we show that restricting non-determinism to reasonable choices allows for more efficient implementations in comparison with related neuro-symbolic approaches without losing much accuracy.

Scheduling methods are important for effective production and logistics management, where tasks need to be allocated and performed with limited resources. In particular, the Job-shop Scheduling Problem (JSP) is a well known and challenging combinatorial optimization problem in which tasks sharing a machine are to be arranged in a sequence such that encompassing jobs can be completed as early as possible. Given that already moderately sized JSP instances can be highly combinatorial, and neither optimal schedules nor the runtime to termination of complete optimization methods is known, efficient approaches to approximate good-quality schedules are of interest. In this paper, we propose problem decomposition into time windows whose operations can be successively scheduled and optimized by means of multi-shot Answer Set Programming (ASP) solving. From a computational perspective, decomposition aims to split highly complex scheduling tasks into better manageable subproblems with a balanced number of operations so that good-quality or even optimal partial solutions can be reliably found in a small fraction of runtime. Regarding the feasibility and quality of solutions, problem decomposition must respect the precedence of operations within their jobs and partial schedules optimized by time windows should yield better global solutions than obtainable in similar runtime on the entire instance. We devise and investigate a variety of decomposition strategies in terms of the number and size of time windows as well as heuristics for choosing their operations. Moreover, we incorporate time window overlapping and compression techniques into the iterative scheduling process to counteract window-wise optimization limitations restricted to partial schedules. Our experiments on JSP benchmark sets of several sizes show that successive optimization by multi-shot ASP solving leads to substantially better schedules within the runtime limit than global optimization on the full problem, where the gap increases with the number of operations to schedule. While the obtained solution quality still remains behind a state-of-the-art Constraint Programming system, our multi-shot solving approach comes closer the larger the instance size, demonstrating good scalability by problem decomposition.