This article is devoted to the study of methods to change defeasible logic programs (de.l.p.s) which are the knowledge bases used by the Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) interpreter. DeLP is an argumentation formalism that allows to reason over potentially inconsistent de.l.p.s. Argument Theory Change (ATC) studies certain aspects of belief revision in order to make them suitable for abstract argumentation systems. In this article, abstract arguments are rendered concrete by using the particular rule-based defeasible logic adopted by DeLP. The objective of our proposal is to define prioritized argument revision operators à la ATC for de.l.p.s, in such a way that the newly inserted argument ends up undefeated after the revision, thus warranting its conclusion. In order to ensure this warrant, the de.l.p. has to be changed in concordance with a minimal change principle. To this end, we discuss different minimal change criteria that could be adopted. Finally, an algorithm is presented, implementing the argument revision operations.

The proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP) have had several publishers, including MIT Press and Springer's Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Beginning in 2010, the proceedings have been published in a dual format: with regular papers contained in a special issue of Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP), and technical communications as a Dagstuhl LIPics series publication. The reason for the change was that compared to researchers in other fields, computer scientists publish more in conferences or symposia and less in journals. The thinking went that since many ICLP papers are of journal quality – or nearly so – why not publish them in a journal straight away? And why not TPLP?

For some computational problems (e.g., product configuration, planning, diagnosis, query answering, phylogeny reconstruction), computing a set of similar/diverse solutions may be desirable for better decision-making. With this motivation, we have studied several decision/optimization versions of this problem in the context of Answer set programming (ASP), analyzed their computational complexity, and introduced offline/online methods to compute similar/diverse solutions of such computational problems with respect to a given distance function. All these methods rely on the idea of computing solutions to a problem by means of finding the answer sets for an ASP program that describes the problem. The offline methods compute all solutions of a problem in advance using the ASP formulation of the problem with an existing ASP solver, like clasp, and then identify similar/diverse solutions using some clustering methods (possibly in ASP as well). The online methods compute similar/diverse solutions of a problem following one of the three approaches: by reformulating the ASP representation of the problem to compute similar/diverse solutions at once using an existing ASP solver; by computing similar/diverse solutions iteratively (one after the other) using an existing ASP solver; by modifying the search algorithm of an ASP solver to compute similar/diverse solutions incrementally. All these methods are sound; the offline method and the first online method are complete whereas the others are not. We have modified clasp to implement the last online method and called it clasp-nk. In the first two online methods, the given distance function is represented in ASP; in the last one, however, it is implemented in C++. We have shown the applicability and the effectiveness of these methods using clasp or clasp-nk on two sorts of problems with different distance measures: on a real-world problem in phylogenetics (i.e., reconstruction of similar/diverse phylogenies for Indo-European languages), and on several planning problems in a well-known domain (i.e., Blocks World). We have observed that in terms of computational efficiency (both time and space), the last online method outperforms the others; also, it allows us to compute similar/diverse solutions when the distance function cannot be represented in ASP (e.g., due to some mathematical functions not supported by the ASP solvers) but can be easily implemented in C++.

Weight constraint and aggregate programs are among the most widely used logic programs with constraints. In this paper, we relate the semantics of these two classes of programs, namely, the stable model semantics for weight constraint programs and the answer set semantics based on conditional satisfaction for aggregate programs. Both classes of programs are instances of logic programs with constraints, and in particular, the answer set semantics for aggregate programs can be applied to weight constraint programs. We show that the two semantics are closely related. First, we show that for a broad class of weight constraint programs, called strongly satisfiable programs, the two semantics coincide. When they disagree, a stable model admitted by the stable model semantics may be circularly justified. We show that the gap between the two semantics can be closed by transforming a weight constraint program to a strongly satisfiable one so that no circular models may be generated under the current implementation of the stable model semantics. We further demonstrate the close relationship between the two semantics by formulating a transformation from weight constraint programs to logic programs with nested expressions, which preserves the answer set semantics. Our study on the semantics leads to an investigation of a methodological issue, namely, the possibility of compact representation of aggregate programs by weight constraint programs. We show that almost all standard aggregates can be encoded by weight constraints compactly. This makes it possible to compute the answer sets of aggregate programs using the answer set programming solvers for weight constraint programs. This approach is compared experimentally with the ones where aggregates are handled more explicitly, which show that the weight constraint encoding of aggregates enables a competitive approach to answer set computation for aggregate programs.

This special issue of TPLP commemorates the 25th edition of the annual conference organized by GULP (Gruppo Ricercatori e Utenti Logic Programming), the Italian group of researchers and users of logic programming. The first event in this series was held at Genoa in 1986, one year after the foundation of the user group, continuing annually ever since. In 1994, the conference joined forces with the Spanish conference PRODE (on Declarative Programming), and in 1996 with the Portuguese APPIA (on Artificial Intelligence). This collaboration continued until 2003. Starting from 2004, the event became known as CILC (Convegno Italiano di Logica Computazionale, Italian Conference on Computational Logic), thereby broadening its topics to general computational logic, while becoming a national Italian event again. Being one of the oldest and largest national events of its kind, over the years the conference has been an important networking opportunity and catalyst for persons with different backgrounds, coming from theory and practice, and from research and industry, for exchanging their visions, achievements, and challenges in logic programming. For a more detailed historical account on GULP and its annual conferences, we refer to Rossi (2010).

Recent work in Answer Set Programming has integrated ideas from Constraint Programming. This has led to a new field called ASP Modulo CSP (CASP), in which the ASP language is enriched with constraint atoms representing constraint satisfaction problems. These constraints have a more compact grounding and are handled by a new generation of search algorithms. However, the burden is on the modeler to exploit these new constructs in his declarative problem specifications. Here, we explore how to remove this burden by automatically generating constraint atoms. We do so in the context of FO(·)IDP, a knowledge representation language that extends first-order logic with, among others, inductive definitions, arithmetic and aggregates. We uncover functional dependencies in declarative problem specifications with a theorem prover and exploit them with a transformation that introduces functions. Experimental evaluation shows that we obtain more compact groundings and better search performance.

The paper presents a knowledge representation formalism, in the form of a high-level Action Description Language (ADL) for multi-agent systems, where autonomous agents reason and act in a shared environment. Agents are autonomously pursuing individual goals, but are capable of interacting through a shared knowledge repository. In their interactions through shared portions of the world, the agents deal with problems of synchronization and concurrency; the action language allows the description of strategies to ensure a consistent global execution of the agents’ autonomously derived plans. A distributed planning problem is formalized by providing the declarative specifications of the portion of the problem pertaining to a single agent. Each of these specifications is executable by a stand-alone CLP-based planner. The coordination among agents exploits a Linda infrastructure. The proposal is validated in a prototype implementation developed in SICStus Prolog.

Answer set programming (ASP) is a form of declarative programming that allows to succinctly formulate and efficiently solve complex problems. An intuitive extension of this formalism is communicating ASP, in which multiple ASP programs collaborate to solve the problem at hand. However, the expressiveness of communicating ASP has not been thoroughly studied. In this paper, we present a systematic study of the additional expressiveness offered by allowing ASP programs to communicate. First, we consider a simple form of communication where programs are only allowed to ask questions to each other. For the most part, we deliberately consider only simple programs, i.e. programs for which computing the answer sets is in P. We find that the problem of deciding whether a literal is in some answer set of a communicating ASP program using simple communication is NP-hard. In other words, due to the ability of these simple ASP programs to communicate and collaborate, we move up a step in the polynomial hierarchy. Second, we modify the communication mechanism to also allow us to focus on a sequence of communicating programs, where each program in the sequence may successively remove some of the remaining models. This mimics a network of leaders, where the first leader has the first say and may remove models that he or she finds unsatisfactory. Using this particular communication mechanism allows us to capture the entire polynomial hierarchy. This means, in particular, that communicating ASP could be used to solve problems that are above the second level of polynomial hierarchy, such as some forms of abductive reasoning as well as PSPACE-complete problems such as STRIPS planning.

Region-based memory management (RBMM) is a form of compile time memory management, well-known from the world of functional programming. In this paper we describe our work on implementing RBMM for the logic programming language Mercury. One interesting point about Mercury is that it is designed with strong type, mode, and determinism systems. These systems not only provide Mercury programmers with several direct software engineering benefits, such as self-documenting code and clear program logic, but also give language implementors a large amount of information that is useful for program analyses. In this work, we make use of this information to develop program analyses that determine the distribution of data into regions and transform Mercury programs by inserting into them the necessary region operations. We prove the correctness of our program analyses and transformation. To execute annotated programs, we have implemented runtime support that tackles the two main challenges posed by backtracking. First, backtracking can require regions removed during forward execution to be “resurrected”; and second, any memory allocated during computation that has been backtracked over must be recovered promptly without waiting for the regions involved to come to the end of their life. We describe in detail our solution of both these problems. We study in detail how our RBMM system performs on a selection of benchmark programs, including some well-known difficult cases for RBMM. Even with these difficult cases, our RBMM-enabled Mercury system obtains clearly faster runtimes for 15 out of 18 benchmarks compared to the base Mercury system with its Boehm runtime garbage collector, with an average runtime speedup of 24%, and an average reduction in memory requirements of 95%. In fact, our system achieves optimal memory consumption in some programs.

In this paper, a possibilistic disjunctive logic programming approach for modeling uncertain, incomplete, and inconsistent information is defined. This approach introduces the use of possibilistic disjunctive clauses, which are able to capture incomplete information and states of a knowledge base at the same time. By considering a possibilistic logic program as a possibilistic logic theory, a construction of a possibilistic logic programming semantic based on answer sets and the proof theory of possibilistic logic is defined. It shows that this possibilistic semantics for disjunctive logic programs can be characterized by a fixed-point operator. It is also shown that the suggested possibilistic semantics can be computed by a resolution algorithm and the consideration of optimal refutations from a possibilistic logic theory. In order to manage inconsistent possibilistic logic programs, a preference criterion between inconsistent possibilistic models is defined. In addition, the approach of cuts for restoring consistency of an inconsistent possibilistic knowledge base is adopted. The approach is illustrated in a medical scenario.

Open Answer Set Programming (OASP) is an undecidable framework for integrating ontologies and rules. Although several decidable fragments of OASP have been identified, few reasoning procedures exist. In this paper, we provide a sound, complete, and terminating algorithm for satisfiability checking w.r.t. Forest Logic Programs (FoLPs), a fragment of OASP where rules have a tree shape and allow for inequality atoms and constants. The algorithm establishes a decidability result for FoLPs. Although believed to be decidable, so far only the decidability for two small subsets of FoLPs, local FoLPs and acyclic FoLPs, has been shown. We further introduce f-hybrid knowledge bases, a hybrid framework where knowledge bases and FoLPs coexist, and we show that reasoning with such knowledge bases can be reduced to reasoning with FoLPs only. We note that f-hybrid knowledge bases do not require the usual (weakly) DL-safety of the rule component, thus providing a genuine alternative approach to current integration approaches of ontologies and rules.

Representation sharing can reduce the memory footprint of a program by sharing one representation between duplicate terms. The most common implementation of representation sharing in functional programming systems is known as hash-consing. In the context of Prolog, representation sharing has been given little attention. Some current techniques that deal with representation sharing are reviewed. The new contributions are (1) an easy implementation of input sharing for findall/3; and (2) a description of a sharer module that introduces representation sharing at runtime. Their realization is shown in the context of the Warren Abstract Machine (WAM) as implemented by hProlog. Both can be adapted to any WAM-like Prolog implementation. The sharer works independently of the garbage collector, but it can be made to cooperate with the garbage collector. Benchmark results show that the sharer has a cost comparable to the heap garbage collector, that its effectiveness is highly application-dependent, and that its policy must be tuned to the collector.

We present a method for the automated verification of temporal properties of infinite state systems. Our verification method is based on the specialization of constraint logic programs (CLP) and works in two phases: (1) in the first phase, a CLP specification of an infinite state system is specialized with respect to the initial state of the system and the temporal property to be verified, and (2) in the second phase, the specialized program is evaluated by using a bottom-up strategy. The effectiveness of the method strongly depends on the generalization strategy which is applied during the program specialization phase. We consider several generalization strategies obtained by combining techniques already known in the field of program analysis and program transformation, and we also introduce some new strategies. Then, through many verification experiments, we evaluate the effectiveness of the generalization strategies we have considered. Finally, we compare the implementation of our specialization-based verification method to other constraint-based model checking tools. The experimental results show that our method is competitive with the methods used by those other tools.

In this paper we take on Stuart C. Shapiro's challenge of solving the Jobs Puzzle automatically and do this via controlled natural language processing. Instead of encoding the puzzle in a formal language that might be difficult to use and understand, we employ a controlled natural language as a high-level specification language that adheres closely to the original notation of the puzzle and allows us to reconstruct the puzzle in a machine-processable way and add missing and implicit information to the problem description. We show how the resulting specification can be translated into an answer set program and be processed by a state-of-the-art answer set solver to find the solutions to the puzzle.

We investigate the relationship between the generalization of program completion defined in 1984 by Lloyd and Topor and the generalization of the stable model semantics introduced recently by Ferraris et al. The main theorem can be used to characterize, in some cases, the general stable models of a logic program by a first-order formula. The proof uses Truszczynski's stable model semantics of infinitary propositional formulas.

We provide a method of translating theories of Nute's defeasible logic into logic programs, and a corresponding translation in the opposite direction. Under certain natural restrictions, the conclusions of defeasible theories under the ambiguity propagating defeasible logic ADL correspond to those of the well-founded semantics for normal logic programs, and so it turns out that the two formalisms are closely related. Using the same translation of logic programs into defeasible theories, the semantics for the ambiguity blocking defeasible logic NDL can be seen as indirectly providing an ambiguity blocking semantics for logic programs. We also provide antimonotone operators for both ADL and NDL, each based on the Gelfond–Lifschitz (GL) operator for logic programs. For defeasible theories without defeaters or priorities on rules, the operator for ADL corresponds to the GL operator and so can be seen as partially capturing the consequences according to ADL. Similarly, the operator for NDL captures the consequences according to NDL, though in this case no restrictions on theories apply. Both operators can be used to define stable model semantics for defeasible theories.

In this paper, we combine Answer Set Programming (ASP) with Dynamic Linear Time Temporal Logic (DLTL) to define a temporal logic programming language for reasoning about complex actions and infinite computations. DLTL extends propositional temporal logic of linear time with regular programs of propositional dynamic logic, which are used for indexing temporal modalities. The action language allows general DLTL formulas to be included in domain descriptions to constrain the space of possible extensions. We introduce a notion of Temporal Answer Set for domain descriptions, based on the usual notion of Answer Set. Also, we provide a translation of domain descriptions into standard ASP and use Bounded Model Checking (BMC) techniques for the verification of DLTL constraints.