We define generalized ontology-based production systems (GOPSs), which formalize a very general and powerful combination of ontologies and production systems. We show that GOPSs capture and generalize many existing formal notions of production systems. We introduce a powerful verification query language for GOPSs, which is able to express the most relevant formal properties of production systems previously considered in the literature. We establish a general sufficient condition for the decidability of answering verification queries over GOPSs. Then, we define Lite-GOPS, a particular class of GOPSs based on the use of a light-weight ontology language (DL-Llite_A), a light-weight ontology query language (EQL-Lite(UCQ)), and a tractable semantics for updates over Description Logic ontologies. We show decidability of all the above verification tasks over Lite-GOPSs, and prove tractability of some of such tasks.

In this paper we encode some of the reasoning methods used in frame based knowledge representation languages in answer set programming (ASP). In particular, we show how ``cloning'' and ``unification'' in frame based systems can be encoded in ASP. We then show how some of the types of queries with respect to a biological knowledge base can be encoded using our methodology. We also provide insight on how the reasoning can be done more efficiently when dealing with a huge knowledge base.

Given a 4-tuple of Boolean variables (a, b, c, d), logical proportions are modeled by a pair of equivalences relating similarity indicators (a ∧ b and a ∧ b), or dissimilarity indicators (a ∧ b and a ∧ b) pertaining to the pair (a, b), to the ones associated with the pair (c, d). Logical proportions are homogeneous when they are based on equivalences between indicators of the same kind. There are only 4 such homogeneous proportions, which respectively express that i) “a differs from b as c differs from d” (and “b differs from a as d differs from c”), ii) “a differs from b as d differs from c” (and “b differs from a as c differs from d”), iii) “what a and b have in common c and d have it also”, iv) “what a and b have in common neither c nor d have it”. We prove that each of these proportions is the unique Boolean formula (up to equivalence) that satisfies groups of remarkable properties including a stability property w.r.t. a specific permutation of the terms of the proportion. The first one (i) is shown to be the only one to satisfy the standard postulates of an analogical proportion. The paper also studies how two analogical proportions can be combined into a new one. We then examine how homogeneous proportions can be used for diverse prediction tasks. We particularly focus on the completion of analogical-like series, and on missing value abduction problems. Finally, the paper compares our approach with other existing works on qualitative prediction based on ideas of betweenness, or of matrix abduction.

We consider the problem of reasoning from inconsistent hybrid theories, i.e., combinations of a structural part given by a classical first order theory (e.g., an ontology) and a rules part as a set of declarative logic program rules (under answer-set semantics). Paraconsistent reasoning is achieved by defining an appropriate semantics, so-called paraconsistent semi-equilibrium model semantics for such hybrid theories. Appropriateness of the semantics is established with respect to desirable properties attesting design objectives, such us to generalize the underlying semantics in case of consistency, as well as to generalize existing paraconsistent semantics for the individual parts. A complexity analysis of corresponding reasoning tasks complements these results.

Many examples of epistemic reasoning in the literature exhibit a stratified structure: defaults are formulated on top of an incomplete knowledge base. These defaults derive extra information in case information is missing in the knowledge base. In autoepistemic logic, default logic and ASP this inherent stratification is not preserved as they may refer to their own knowledge or logical consequences. Defining the semantics of such logics requires a complex mathematical construction. As an alternative, this paper further develops ordered epistemic logic. This logic extends first order logic with a modal operator and stratification is maintained. This allows us to define an easy to understand semantics. Moreover, inference tasks have a lower complexity than in autoepistemic logic and the logic integrates seamlessly into classical logic and its extensions. In this paper we also propose a generalization of ordered epistemic logic, which we call distributed ordered epistemic logic. We argue that it can provide a semantic foundation for a number of distributed knowledge representation formalisms found in the literature.

In this paper we introduce an abstract theory of normative reasoning, whose central notion is the generation of obligations, permissions and institutional facts from conditional norms. We present various semantics and their proof systems. The theory can be used to classify and compare new candidates for standards of normative reasoning, and to explore more elaborate forms of normative reasoning than studied thus far.

Only-knowing was originally introduced by Levesque to capture the beliefs of an agent in the sense that its knowledge base is all the agent knows. When a knowledge base contains defaults Levesque also showed an exact correspondence between only-knowing and autoepistemic logic. Later these results were extended by Lakemeyer and Levesque to also capture a variant of autoepistemic logic proposed by Konolige and Reiter's default logic. One of the benefits of such an approach is that various nonmonotonic formalisms can be compared within a single monotonic logic leading, among other things, to the first axiom system for default logic. In this paper, we will bring another large class of nonmonotonic systems, which were first studied by McDermott and Doyle, into the only-knowing fold. Among other things, we will provide the first possible-world semantics for such systems, providing a new perspective on the nature of modal approaches to nonmonotonic reasoning.

Automatically deriving properties of new games is one of the fundamental challenges for general game-playing systems, whose task is to learn to play any previously unknown game solely by being given the rules of that game. A recently developed method uses Answer Set Programming for verifying finitely-bounded temporal invariance properties against a given game description by structural induction. Addressing the new challenge posed by the recent extension of the general Game Description Language to include games with imperfect information and randomness, we extend this method to epistemic properties about games. We formally prove this extension to be correct, and we report on experiments that show its practical applicability.

Standard models of multi-agent modal logic do not capture the fact that information is often ambiguous, and may be interpreted in different ways by different agents. We propose a framework that can model this, and consider different semantics that capture different assumptions about the agents' beliefs regarding whether or not there is ambiguity. We consider the impact of ambiguity on a seminal result in economics: Aumann's result saying that agents with a common prior cannot agree to disagree. This result is known not to hold if agents do not have acommon prior; we show that it also does not hold in the presence of ambiguity. We then consider the tradeoff between assuming a common interpretation (i.e., no ambiguity) and a common prior (i.e., shared initial beliefs).

We explore the paradigm of artifact-centric systems from a knowledge-based perspective. We provide a semantics based on interpreted-systems to interpret a first-order temporal- epistemic language with identity in a multi-agent setting. We consider the model checking problem for this language and provide abstraction results. We isolate a natural subclass of artifact-systems for which the model checking problem is decidable. We give an upper bound on the complexity of the model checking problem.