Complex Event Recognition (CER) systems detect event occurrences in streaming time-stamped input using predefined event patterns. Logic-based approaches are of special interest in CER, since, via Statistical Relational AI, they combine uncertainty-resilient reasoning with time and change, with machine learning, thus alleviating the cost of manual event pattern authoring. We present a system based on Answer Set Programming (ASP), capable of probabilistic reasoning with complex event patterns in the form of weighted rules in the Event Calculus, whose structure and weights are learnt online. We compare our ASP-based implementation with a Markov Logic-based one and with a number of state-of-the-art batch learning algorithms on CER data sets for activity recognition, maritime surveillance and fleet management. Our results demonstrate the superiority of our novel approach, both in terms of efficiency and predictive performance. This paper is under consideration for publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).

The goal of inductive logic programming (ILP) is to learn a program that explains a set of examples. Until recently, most research on ILP targeted learning Prolog programs. The ILASP system instead learns answer set programs (ASP). Learning such expressive programs widens the applicability of ILP considerably; for example, enabling preference learning, learning common-sense knowledge, including defaults and exceptions, and learning non-deterministic theories. Early versions of ILASP can be considered meta-level ILP approaches, which encode a learning task as a logic program and delegate the search to an ASP solver. More recently, ILASP has shifted towards a new method, inspired by conflict-driven SAT and ASP solvers. The fundamental idea of the approach, called Conflict-driven ILP (CDILP), is to iteratively interleave the search for a hypothesis with the generation of constraints which explain why the current hypothesis does not cover a particular example. These coverage constraints allow ILASP to rule out not just the current hypothesis, but an entire class of hypotheses that do not satisfy the coverage constraint. This article formalises the CDILP approach and presents the ILASP3 and ILASP4 systems for CDILP, which are demonstrated to be more scalable than previous ILASP systems, particularly in the presence of noise.

The decoupling between the representation of a certain problem, that is, its knowledge model, and the reasoning side is one of main strong points of model-based artificial intelligence (AI). This allows, for example, to focus on improving the reasoning side by having advantages on the whole solving process. Further, it is also well known that many solvers are very sensitive to even syntactic changes in the input. In this paper, we focus on improving the reasoning side by taking advantages of such sensitivity. We consider two well-known model-based AI methodologies, SAT and ASP, define a number of syntactic features that may characterise their inputs, and use automated configuration tools to reformulate the input formula or program. Results of a wide experimental analysis involving SAT and ASP domains, taken from respective competitions, show the different advantages that can be obtained by using input reformulation and configuration.

In this work, we show that both logic programming and abstract argumentation frameworks can be interpreted in terms of Nelson’s constructive logic N4. We do so by formalising, in this logic, two principles that we call noncontradictory inference and strengthened closed world assumption: the first states that no belief can be held based on contradictory evidence while the latter forces both unknown and contradictory evidence to be regarded as false. Using these principles, both logic programming and abstract argumentation frameworks are translated into constructive logic in a modular way and using the object language. Logic programming implication and abstract argumentation supports become, in the translation, a new implication connective following the noncontradictory inference principle. Attacks are then represented by combining this new implication with strong negation. Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).

Formal reasoning about finite sets and cardinality is important for many applications, including software verification, where very often one needs to reason about the size of a given data structure. The Constraint Logic Programming tool $$\{ log\} $$ provides a decision procedure for deciding the satisfiability of formulas involving very general forms of finite sets, although it does not provide cardinality constraints. In this paper we adapt and integrate a decision procedure for a theory of finite sets with cardinality into $$\{ log\} $$ . The proposed solver is proved to be a decision procedure for its formulas. Besides, the new CLP instance is implemented as part of the $$\{ log\} $$ tool. In turn, the implementation uses Howe and King’s Prolog SAT solver and Prolog’s CLP(Q) library, as an integer linear programming solver. The empirical evaluation of this implementation based on +250 real verification conditions shows that it can be useful in practice.

Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP)