We introduce negation under the stable model semantics in DatalogMTL – a temporal extension of Datalog with metric temporal operators. As a result, we obtain a rule language which combines the power of answer set programming with the temporal dimension provided by metric operators. We show that, in this setting, reasoning becomes undecidable over the rational timeline, and decidable in ${{\rm E}{\small\rm XP}{\rm S}{\small\rm PACE}}$ in data complexity over the integer timeline. We also show that, if we restrict our attention to forward-propagating programs, reasoning over the integer timeline becomes ${{\rm PS}{\small\rm PACE}}$-complete in data complexity, and hence, no harder than over positive programs; however, reasoning over the rational timeline in this fragment remains undecidable.

Argumentation problems are concerned with determining the acceptability of a set of arguments from their relational structure. When the available information is uncertain, probabilistic argumentation frameworks provide modeling tools to account for it. The first contribution of this paper is a novel interpretation of probabilistic argumentation frameworks as probabilistic logic programs. Probabilistic logic programs are logic programs in which some of the facts are annotated with probabilities. We show that the programs representing probabilistic argumentation frameworks do not satisfy a common assumption in probabilistic logic programming (PLP) semantics, which is, that probabilistic facts fully capture the uncertainty in the domain under investigation. The second contribution of this paper is then a novel PLP semantics for programs where a choice of probabilistic facts does not uniquely determine the truth assignment of the logical atoms. The third contribution of this paper is the implementation of a PLP system supporting this semantics: smProbLog. smProbLog is a novel PLP framework based on the PLP language ProbLog. smProbLog supports many inference and learning tasks typical of PLP, which, together with our first contribution, provide novel reasoning tools for probabilistic argumentation. We evaluate our approach with experiments analyzing the computational cost of the proposed algorithms and their application to a dataset of argumentation problems.

In the Declarative Networking paradigm, Datalog-like languages are used to express distributed computations. Whereas recently formal operational semantics for these languages have been developed, a corresponding declarative semantics has been lacking so far. The challenge is to capture precisely the amount of nondeterminism that is inherent to distributed computations due to concurrency, networking delays, and asynchronous communication. This paper shows how a declarative, model-based semantics can be obtained by simply using the well-known stable model semantics for Datalog with negation. We show that the model-based semantics matches previously proposed formal operational semantics.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a powerful form of declarative programming used in areas such as planning or reasoning. ASP solvers enforce stable model semantics, which rule out solutions representing certain kinds of circular reasoning. Unfortunately, current ASP solvers are incapable of solving problems involving cyclic dependencies between multiple integer or continuous quantities effectively. In this paper, we generalize the notion of stable models to bound founded variables with arbitrary domains, where bounds on such variables need to be justified by some rule in the program in order for the model to be stable. We show how to handle significantly more general rule forms where bound founded variables can act as head or body variables, and where head and body variables can be related via complex constraints subject to certain monotonicity requirements. We describe a new unfounded set detection algorithm which allows us to enforce this generalization of the stable model semantics. We also show how these unfounded sets can be explained in order to allow effective conflict-directed clause learning. The new solver merges the best features of CP, SAT and ASP solvers and allows new types of problems to be solved very efficiently.

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.

Logic programming has developed as a rich field, built over a logical substratum whose main constituent is a nonclassical form of negation, sometimes coexisting with classical negation. The field has seen the advent of a number of alternative semantics, with Kripke–Kleene semantics, the well-founded semantics, the stable model semantics, and the answer-set semantics standing out as the most successful. We show that all aforementioned semantics are particular cases of a generic semantics, in a framework where classical negation is the unique form of negation and where the literals in the bodies of the rules can be ‘marked’ to indicate that they can be the targets of hypotheses. A particular semantics then amounts to choosing a particular marking scheme and choosing a particular set of hypotheses. When a literal belongs to the chosen set of hypotheses, all marked occurrences of that literal in the body of a rule are assumed to be true, whereas the occurrences of that literal that have not been marked in the body of the rule are to be derived in order to contribute to the firing of the rule. Hence the notion of hypothetical reasoning that is presented in this framework is not based on making global assumptions, but more subtly on making local, contextual assumptions, taking effect as indicated by the chosen marking scheme on the basis of the chosen set of hypotheses. Our approach offers a unified view on the various semantics proposed in logic programming, classical in that only classical negation is used, and links the semantics of logic programs to mechanisms that endow rule-based systems with the power to harness hypothetical reasoning.

Using the notion of an elementary loop, Gebser and Schaub (2005. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'05), 53–65) refined the theorem on loop formulas attributable to Lin and Zhao (2004) by considering loop formulas of elementary loops only. In this paper, we reformulate the definition of an elementary loop, extend it to disjunctive programs, and study several properties of elementary loops, including how maximal elementary loops are related to minimal unfounded sets. The results provide useful insights into the stable model semantics in terms of elementary loops. For a nondisjunctive program, using a graph-theoretic characterization of an elementary loop, we show that the problem of recognizing an elementary loop is tractable. On the other hand, we also show that the corresponding problem is coNP-complete for a disjunctive program. Based on the notion of an elementary loop, we present the class of Head-Elementary-loop-Free (HEF) programs, which strictly generalizes the class of Head-Cycle-Free (HCF) programs attributable to Ben-Eliyahu and Dechter (1994. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 12, 53–87). Like an HCF program, an HEF program can be turned into an equivalent nondisjunctive program in polynomial time by shifting head atoms into the body.

This paper presents a logic language for expressing search and optimization problems. Specifically, first a language obtained by extending (positive) DATALOG with intuitive and efficient constructs (namely, stratified negation, constraints, and exclusive disjunction) is introduced. Next, a further restricted language only using a restricted form of disjunction to define (nondeterministically) subsets (or partitions) of relations is investigated. This language, called atalog, captures the power of DATALOG¬ in expressing search and optimization problems. A system prototype implementing atalog is presented. The system translates atalog queries into Optimization Programming Language (OPL) programs which are executed by the ILOG OPL Development Studio. Our proposal combines easy formulation of problems, expressed by means of a declarative logic language, with the efficiency of the ILOG System. Several experiments show the effectiveness of this approach.

This paper studies the stable model semantics of logic programs with (abstract) constraint atoms and their properties. We introduce a succinct abstract representation of these constraint atoms in which a constraint atom is represented compactly. We show two applications. First, under this representation of constraint atoms, we generalize the Gelfond–Lifschitz transformation and apply it to define stable models (also called answer sets) for logic programs with arbitrary constraint atoms. The resulting semantics turns out to coincide with the one defined by Son et al. (2007), which is based on a fixpoint approach. One advantage of our approach is that it can be applied, in a natural way, to define stable models for disjunctive logic programs with constraint atoms, which may appear in the disjunctive head as well as in the body of a rule. As a result, our approach to the stable model semantics for logic programs with constraint atoms generalizes a number of previous approaches. Second, we show that our abstract representation of constraint atoms provides a means to characterize dependencies of atoms in a program with constraint atoms, so that some standard characterizations and properties relying on these dependencies in the past for logic programs with ordinary atoms can be extended to logic programs with constraint atoms.

In everyday life it happens that a person has to reason out what other peoplethink and how they behave, in order to achieve his goals. In other words, anindividual may be required to adapt his behavior by reasoning about the others'mental state. In this paper we focus on a knowledge-representation languagederived from logic programming which both supports the representation of mentalstates of individual communities and provides each with the capability ofreasoning about others' mental states and acting accordingly. The proposedsemantics is shown to be translatable into stable model semantics of logicprograms with aggregates.

In this paper, a Gaifman–Shapiro-style module architecture is tailoredto the case of smodels programs under the stable model semantics. Thecomposition of smodels program modules is suitably limited by moduleconditions which ensure the compatibility of the module system with stablemodels. Hence the semantics of an entire smodels program dependsdirectly on stable models assigned to its modules. This result is formalized asa module theorem which truly strengthens V. Lifschitz and H.Turner's splitting-set theorem (June 1994, Splitting a logic program. InLogic Programming: Proceedings of the Eleventh InternationalConference on Logic Programming, Santa Margherita Ligure, Italy, P.V. Hentenryck, Ed. MIT Press, 23–37) for the class of smodelsprograms. To streamline generalizations in the future, the module theorem isfirst proved for normal programs and then extended to cover smodelsprograms using a translation from the latter class of programs to the formerclass. Moreover, the respective notion of module-level equivalence, namelymodular equivalence, is shown to be a proper congruencerelation: it is preserved under substitutions of modules that are modularlyequivalent. Principles for program decomposition are also addressed. Thestrongly connected components of the respective dependency graph can beexploited in order to extract a module structure when there is no explicita priori knowledge about the modules of a program. Thepaper includes a practical demonstration of tools that have been developed forautomated (de)composition of smodels programs.

Given an argumentation framework AF, we introduce a mapping function that constructs a disjunctive logic program P, such that the preferred extensions of AF correspond to the stable models of P, after intersecting each stable model with the relevant atoms. The given mapping function is of polynomial size w.r.t. AF.

In particular, we identify that there is a direct relationship between the minimal models of a propositional formula and the preferred extensions of an argumentation framework by working on representing the defeated arguments. Then we show how to infer the preferred extensions of an argumentation framework by using UNSAT algorithms and disjunctive stable model solvers. The relevance of this result is that we define a direct relationship between one of the most satisfactory argumentation semantics and one of the most successful approach of nonmonotonic reasoning i.e., logic programming with the stable model semantics.

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.