In temporal extensions of answer set programming (ASP) based on linear time, the behavior of dynamic systems is captured by sequences of states. While this representation reflects their relative order, it abstracts away the specific times associated with each state. However, timing constraints are important in many applications like, for instance, when planning and scheduling go hand in hand. We address this by developing a metric extension of linear-time temporal equilibrium logic, in which temporal operators are constrained by intervals over natural numbers. The resulting Metric Equilibrium Logic (MEL) provides the foundation of an ASP-based approach for specifying qualitative and quantitative dynamic constraints. To this end, we define a translation of metric formulas into monadic first-order formulas and give a correspondence between their models in MEL and Monadic Quantified Equilibrium Logic, respectively. Interestingly, our translation provides a blue print for implementation in terms of ASP modulo difference constraints.

In this survey, we present an overview on (Modal) Temporal Logic Programming in view of its application to Knowledge Representation and Declarative Problem Solving. The syntax of this extension of logic programs is the result of combining usual rules with temporal modal operators, as in Linear-time Temporal Logic (LTL). In the paper, we focus on the main recent results of the non-monotonic formalism called Temporal Equilibrium Logic (TEL) that is defined for the full syntax of LTL but involves a model selection criterion based on Equilibrium Logic, a well known logical characterization of Answer Set Programming (ASP). As a result, we obtain a proper extension of the stable models semantics for the general case of temporal formulas in the syntax of LTL. We recall the basic definitions for TEL and its monotonic basis, the temporal logic of Here-and-There (THT), and study the differences between finite and infinite trace length. We also provide further useful results, such as the translation into other formalisms like Quantified Equilibrium Logic and Second-order LTL, and some techniques for computing temporal stable models based on automata constructions. In the remainder of the paper, we focus on practical aspects, defining a syntactic fragment called (modal) temporal logic programs closer to ASP, and explaining how this has been exploited in the construction of the solver telingo, a temporal extension of the well-known ASP solver clingo that uses its incremental solving capabilities.

We describe eclingo, a solver for epistemic logic programs under Gelfond 1991 semantics built upon the Answer Set Programming system clingo. The input language of eclingo uses the syntax extension capabilities of clingo to define subjective literals that, as usual in epistemic logic programs, allow for checking the truth of a regular literal in all or in some of the answer sets of a program. The eclingo solving process follows a guess and check strategy. It first generates potential truth values for subjective literals and, in a second step, it checks the obtained result with respect to the cautious and brave consequences of the program. This process is implemented using the multi-shot functionalities of clingo. We have also implemented some optimisations, aiming at reducing the search space and, therefore, increasing eclingo ’s efficiency in some scenarios. Finally, we compare the efficiency of eclingo with two state-of-the-art solvers for epistemic logic programs on a pair of benchmark scenarios and show that eclingo generally outperforms their obtained results.

A common feature in Answer Set Programming is the use of a second negation, stronger than default negation and sometimes called explicit, strong or classical negation. This explicit negation is normally used in front of atoms, rather than allowing its use as a regular operator. In this paper we consider the arbitrary combination of explicit negation with nested expressions, as those defined by Lifschitz, Tang and Turner. We extend the concept of reduct for this new syntax and then prove that it can be captured by an extension of Equilibrium Logic with this second negation. We study some properties of this variant and compare to the already known combination of Equilibrium Logic with Nelson’s strong negation.

Epistemic Logic Programs (ELPs) extend Answer Set Programming (ASP) with epistemic negation and have received renewed interest in recent years. This led to the development of new research and efficient solving systems for ELPs. In practice, ELPs are often written in a modular way, where each module interacts with other modules by accepting sets of facts as input, and passing on sets of facts as output. An interesting question then presents itself: under which conditions can such a module be replaced by another one without changing the outcome, for any set of input facts? This problem is known as uniform equivalence, and has been studied extensively for ASP. For ELPs, however, such an investigation is, as of yet, missing. In this paper, we therefore propose a characterization of uniform equivalence that can be directly applied to the language of state-of-the-art ELP solvers. We also investigate the computational complexity of deciding uniform equivalence for two ELPs, and show that it is on the third level of the polynomial hierarchy.

In complex reasoning tasks, as expressible by Answer Set Programming (ASP), problems often permit for multiple solutions. In dynamic environments, where knowledge is continuously changing, the question arises how a given model can be incrementally adjusted relative to new and outdated information. This paper introduces Ticker, a prototypical engine for well-defined logical reasoning over streaming data. Ticker builds on a practical fragment of the recent rule-based language LARS, which extends ASP for streams by providing flexible expiration control and temporal modalities. We discuss Ticker's reasoning strategies: first, the repeated one-shot solving mode calls Clingo on an ASP encoding. We show how this translation can be incrementally updated when new data is streaming in or time passes by. Based on this, we build on Doyle's classic justification-based truth-maintenance system to update models of non-stratified programs. Finally, we empirically compare the obtained evaluation mechanisms.

Defeasible logics provide several linguistic features to support the expression of defeasible knowledge. There is also a wide variety of such logics, expressing different intuitions about defeasible reasoning. However, the logics can only combine in trivial ways. This limits their usefulness in contexts where different intuitions are at play in different aspects of a problem. In particular, in some legal settings, different actors have different burdens of proof, which might be expressed as reasoning in different defeasible logics. In this paper, we introduce annotated defeasible logic as a flexible formalism permitting multiple forms of defeasibility, and establish some properties of the formalism.

Characterizations of semi-stable and stage extensions in terms of two-valued logical models are presented. To this end, the so-called GL-supported and GL-stage models are defined. These two classes of logical models are logic programming counterparts of the notion of range which is an established concept in argumentation semantics.

Maher (2012) introduced an approach for relative expressiveness of defeasible logics, and two notions of relative expressiveness were investigated. Using the first of these definitions of relative expressiveness, we show that all the defeasible logics in the DL framework are equally expressive under this formulation of relative expressiveness. The second formulation of relative expressiveness is stronger than the first. However, we show that logics incorporating individual defeat are equally expressive as the corresponding logics with team defeat. Thus the only differences in expressiveness of logics in DL arise from differences in how ambiguity is handled. This completes the study of relative expressiveness in DL begun in Maher (2012).

Datalog is one of the best-known rule-based languages, and extensions of it are used in a wide context of applications. An important Datalog extension is Disjunctive Datalog, which significantly increases the expressivity of the basic language. Disjunctive Datalog is useful in a wide range of applications, ranging from Databases (e.g., Data Integration) to Artificial Intelligence (e.g., diagnosis and planning under incomplete knowledge). However, in recent years an important shortcoming of Datalog-based languages became evident, e.g. in the context of data-integration (consistent query-answering, ontology-based data access) and Semantic Web applications: The language does not permit any generation of and reasoning with unnamed individuals in an obvious way. In general, it is weak in supporting many cases of existential quantification. To overcome this problem, Datalog∃ has recently been proposed, which extends traditional Datalog by existential quantification in rule heads. In this work, we propose a natural extension of Disjunctive Datalog and Datalog∃, called Datalog∃,˅, which allows both disjunctions and existential quantification in rule heads and is therefore an attractive language for knowledge representation and reasoning, especially in domains where ontology-based reasoning is needed. We formally define syntax and semantics of the language Datalog∃,˅, and provide a notion of instantiation, which we prove to be adequate for Datalog∃,˅. A main issue of Datalog∃ and hence also of Datalog∃,˅ is that decidability is no longer guaranteed for typical reasoning tasks. In order to address this issue, we identify many decidable fragments of the language, which extend, in a natural way, analog classes defined in the non-disjunctive case. Moreover, we carry out an in-depth complexity analysis, deriving interesting results which range from Logarithmic Space to Exponential Time.

We address the relative expressiveness of defeasible logics in the framework DL. Relative expressiveness is formulated as the ability to simulate the reasoning of one logic within another logic. We show that such simulations must be modular, in the sense that they also work if applied only to part of a theory, in order to achieve a useful notion of relative expressiveness. We present simulations showing that logics in DL with and without the capability of team defeat are equally expressive. We also show that logics that handle ambiguity differently – ambiguity blocking versus ambiguity propagating – have distinct expressiveness, with neither able to simulate the other under a different formulation of expressiveness.

This paper argues that most of the problems that actuaries have to deal with in the context of non-life insurance can be usefully cast in the framework of computational intelligence (a.k.a. artificial intelligence), the discipline that studies the design of agents which exhibit intelligent behaviour. Finding an adequate framework for actuarial problems has more than a simply theoretical interest: it also allows a technological transfer from the computational intelligence discipline to general insurance, wherever techniques have been developed for problems which are common to both contexts. This has already happened in the past (neural networks, clustering, data mining have all found applications to general insurance) but not in a systematic way. One of the objectives of this paper will therefore be to introduce some useful techniques such as sparsity-based regularisation and dynamic decision networks that are not yet known to the wider actuarial community.

Whilst in the first part of this paper we dealt mainly with data-driven loss modelling under the assumption that all the data were accurate and fully relevant to the exercise, in this second part of the paper we explore how to deal with uncertain knowledge, whether this uncertainty comes from the fact that the data are not fully reliable (e.g. they are estimates) or from the fact that the knowledge is “soft” (e.g. expert beliefs) or not fully relevant (e.g. market information on a given risk). Most importantly, we will deal with the problem of making pricing, reserving and capital decisions under uncertainty. It will be concluded that a Bayesian framework is the most adequate for dealing with uncertainty, and we will present a number of computational intelligence techniques to do this in practice.

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 paradigm of Tabled Logic Programming (TLP) is now supported by a number of Prolog systems, including XSB, YAP Prolog, B-Prolog, Mercury, ALS, and Ciao. The reasons for this are partly theoretical: tabling ensures termination and optimal known complexity for queries to a large class of programs. However, the overriding reasons are practical. TLP allows sophisticated programs to be written concisely and efficiently, especially when mechanisms such as tabled negation and call and answer subsumption are supported. As a result, TLP has now been used in a variety of applications from program analysis to querying over the semantic web. This paper provides a survey of TLP and its applications as implemented in the XSB Prolog, along with discussion of how XSB supports tabling with dynamically changing code, and in a multi-threaded environment.

According to Aristotle, humans are the rational animal. The borderline between rationality and irrationality is fundamental to many aspects of human life including the law, mental health, and language interpretation. But what is it to be rational? One answer, deeply embedded in the Western intellectual tradition since ancient Greece, is that rationality concerns reasoning according to the rules of logic – the formal theory that specifies the inferential connections that hold with certainty between propositions. Piaget viewed logical reasoning as defining the end-point of cognitive development; and contemporary psychology of reasoning has focussed on comparing human reasoning against logical standards.

Bayesian Rationality argues that rationality is defined instead by the ability to reason about uncertainty. Although people are typically poor at numerical reasoning about probability, human thought is sensitive to subtle patterns of qualitative Bayesian, probabilistic reasoning. In Chapters 1–4 of Bayesian Rationality (Oaksford & Chater 2007), the case is made that cognition in general, and human everyday reasoning in particular, is best viewed as solving probabilistic, rather than logical, inference problems. In Chapters 5–7 the psychology of “deductive” reasoning is tackled head-on: It is argued that purportedly “logical” reasoning problems, revealing apparently irrational behaviour, are better understood from a probabilistic point of view. Data from conditional reasoning, Wason's selection task, and syllogistic inference are captured by recasting these problems probabilistically. The probabilistic approach makes a variety of novel predictions which have been experimentally confirmed. The book considers the implications of this work, and the wider “probabilistic turn” in cognitive science and artificial intelligence, for understanding human rationality.

Stable model semantics has become a very popular approach for the management of negation in logic programming. This approach relies mainly on the closed world assumption to complete the available knowledge and its formulation has its basis in the so-called Gelfond–Lifschitz transformation. The primary goal of this work is to present an alternative and epistemic-based characterization of stable model semantics, to the Gelfond-Lifschitz transformation. In particular, we show that stable model semantics can be defined entirely as an extension of the Kripke-Kleene semantics. Indeed, we show that the closed world assumption can be seen as an additional source of ‘falsehood’ to be added cumulatively to the Kripke-Kleene semantics. Our approach is purely algebraic and can abstract from the particular formalism of choice as it is based on monotone operators (under the knowledge order) over bilattices only.

Argumentation has proved a useful tool in defining formal semantics for assumption-based reasoning by viewing a proof as a process in which proponents and opponents attack each others arguments by undercuts (attack to an argument's premise) and rebuts (attack to an argument's conclusion). In this paper, we formulate a variety of notions of attack for extended logic programs from combinations of undercuts and rebuts and define a general hierarchy of argumentation semantics parameterised by the notions of attack chosen by proponent and opponent. We prove the equivalence and subset relationships between the semantics and examine some essential properties concerning consistency and the coherence principle, which relates default negation and explicit negation. Most significantly, we place existing semantics put forward in the literature in our hierarchy and identify a particular argumentation semantics for which we prove equivalence to the paraconsistent well-founded semantics with explicit negation, WFSX$_p$. Finally, we present a general proof theory, based on dialogue trees, and show that it is sound and complete with respect to the argumentation semantics.