In Belief Revision the new information is generally accepted, following the principle of primacy of update. In some case this behavior can be criticized and one could require that some new pieces of information can be rejected by the agent because, for instance, of insufficient plausibility. This has given rise to several approaches of non-prioritized Belief Revision. In particular (Hansson et al. 2001) defined credibility-limited revision operators, where a revision is accepted only if the new information is a formula that belongs to a set of credible formulas. They provide several representation theorems in the AGM style. In this work we study credibility-limited revision operators when the information is represented in propositional logic, like in the Katsuno and Mendelzon framework. We propose a set of postulates and a representation theorem for credibility-limited revision operators. Then we explore how to generalize these definitions to the Iterated Belief Revision case, using epistemic states in the Darwiche and Pearl style.

Belief change studies how to update knowledge bases used for reasoning. Traditionally belief revision has been based on full propositional logic. However, reasoning with full propositional knowledge bases is computationally hard, whereas reasoning with Horn knowledge bases is fast. In the past several years, there has been considerable work in belief revision theory on developing a theory of belief contraction for knowledge represented in Horn form. Our main focus here is the computational complexity of belief contraction, and, in particular, of various methods and approaches suggested in the literature. This is a natural and important question, especially in connection with one of the primary motivations for considering Horn representation: efficiency. The problems considered lead to questions about Horn envelopes (or Horn LUBs), introduced earlier in the context of knowledge compilation. This work gives a syntactic characterization of the remainders of a Horn belief set with respect to a consequence to be contracted, as the Horn envelopes of the belief set and an elementary conjunction corresponding to a truth assignment satisfying a certain explicitly given formula. This gives an efficient algorithm to generate all remainders, each represented by a truth assignment. On the negative side, examples are given of Horn belief sets and consequences where Horn formulas representing the result of contraction, based either on remainders or on weak remainders, must have exponential size for almost all possible choice functions (i.e., different possible choices of partial meet contraction). Therefore using the Horn framework for belief contraction does not by itself give us computational efficiency. Further work is required to explore the possibilities for efficient belief change methods.

Answering queries in information systems that allow for ex- pressive inferencing is currently a field of intense research. This problem is often referred to as ontology-based data ac- cess (OBDA). We focus on conjunctive query entailment un- der logical rules known as tuple-generating dependencies, existential rules or Datalog+/-. One of the most expressive decidable classes of existential rules known today is that of greedy bounded treewidth sets (gbts). We propose an algo- rithm for this class, which is worst-case optimal for data and combined complexities, with or without bound on the pred- icate arity. A beneficial feature of this algorithm is that it allows for separation between offline and online processing steps: the knowledge base can be compiled independently from queries, which are evaluated against the compiled form. Moreover, very simple adaptations of the algorithm lead to worst-case-optimal complexities for specific subclasses of gbts which have lower complexities, such as guarded rules.

Computing minimal models is an important task in Knowledge Representation and Reasoning that appears in formalisms such as circumscription, diagnosis and answer set programming. Even the most basic question of whether there exists a minimal model containing a given variable is known to be $\Sigma_2^P$-complete. In this work we study the problem of computing minimal models from the viewpoint of parameterized complexity theory. We perform an extensive complexity analysis of this problem with respect to eleven parameters. Tractable fragments based on combinations of these parameters are identified by giving several fixed-parameter algorithms. For the remaining combinations we show parameterized hardness results and thus prove that under usual complexity theoretic assumptions no further fixed-parameter algorithms exist for these parameters.

We analyze, along the lines of the knowledge compilation map, both the tractability and the succinctness of the propositional language URC of unit-refutation complete propositional formulae, as well as its disjunctive closure URC[V, ∃], and a superset of URC where variables can be existentially quantified and unit-refutation completeness concerns only consequences built up from free variables.

Fixpoints play a key role in the mathematical set up of abstract argumentation theory but, we argue, have been relatively underexamined in the literature. The paper studies the logical structure underlying the computation via approximation sequences of the sort of fixpoints relevant in argumentation. Concretely, it presents a number of novel results on the fixed point theory underpinning the main Dung's semantics and, inspired by recent literature on the logical analysis of equilibrium computation in games, it provides a characterization of those semantics in terms of iterated model updates.

Abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) provide the basis for various reasoning problems in the areas of Knowledge Representation and Artificial Intelligence. Efficient evaluation of AFs has thus been identified as an important research challenge. So far, implemented systems for evaluating AFs have either followed a straight-forward reduction-based approach or been limited to certain tractable classes of AFs. In this work, we present a generic approach for reasoning over AFs, based on the novel concept of complexity-sensitivity. Establishing the theoretical foundations of this approach, we derive several new complexity results for preferred, semistable and stage semantics which complement the current complexity landscape for abstract argumentation, providing further understanding on the sources of intractability of AF reasoning problems. The introduced generic framework exploits decision procedures for problems of lower complexity whenever possible. This allows, in particular, instantiations of the generic framework via harnessing in an iterative way current sophisticated Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solver technology for solving the considered AF reasoning problems. First experimental results show that the SAT-based instantiation of our novel approach outperforms existing systems.

In software testing, the small-scope hypothesis states that a high proportion of errors can be found by testing a program for all test inputs within some small scope. In this paper, we evaluate the small-scope hypothesis for answer-set programming (ASP). To this end, we follow work in traditional testing and base our evaluation on mutation analysis. In fact, we show that a rather limited scope is sufficient for testing ASP encodings from a representative set of benchmark problems. Our experimental evaluation facilitates effective methods for testing in ASP. Also, it gives some justification to analyse programs at the propositional level after grounding them over a small domain.

The stable model semantics treats a logic program as a mechanism for specifying its intensional predicates. In this paper we discuss a modification of that semantics in which functions, rather than predicates, are intensional. The idea of the new definition comes from nonmonotonic causal logic.

Datalog ∃ is the extension of Datalog, allowing existentially quantified variables in rule heads. This language is highly expressive and enables easy and powerful knowledge-modeling, but the presence of existentially quantified variables makes reasoning over Datalog^E undecidable, in the general case. The results in this paper enable powerful, yet decidable and efficient reasoning (query answering) on top of Datalog ∃ programs. On the theoretical side, we define the class of parsimonious Datalog ∃ programs, and show that it allows of decidable and efficiently-computable reasoning. Unfortunately, we can demonstrate that recognizing parsimony is undecidable. However, we single out Shy, an easily recognizable fragment of parsimonious programs, that significantly extends both Datalog and Linear-Datalog ∃ , while preserving the same (data and combined) complexity of query answering over Datalog, although the addition of existential quantifiers. On the practical side, we implement a bottom-up evaluation strategy for Shy programs inside the DLV system, enhancing the computation by a number of optimization techniques to result in DLV ∃ — a powerful system for answering conjunctive queries over Shy programs, which is profitably applicable to ontology-based query answering. Moreover, we carry out an experimental analysis, comparing DLV ∃ against a number of state-of-the-art systems for ontology-based query answering. The results confirm the effectiveness of DLV ∃ , which outperforms all other systems in the benchmark domain.