In this paper, we study the expressive power of first-order disjunctive logic programming (DLP) and normal logic programming (NLP) under the stable model semantics. We show that, unlike the propositional case, first-order DLP is strictly more expressive than NLP. This result still holds even if auxiliary predicates are allowed, assuming that NP not equals to coNP. On the other side, we propose a partial translation from first-order DLP to NLP via unfolding and shifting, which suggests a sound yet incomplete approach to implement DLP via NLP solvers. We also identify some NLP definable subclasses, and conjecture to exactly capture NLP definability by unfolding and shifting.

RCC8 is a constraint language that serves for qualitative spatial representation and reasoning by encoding the topological relations between spatial entities. We focus on efficiently characterizing non-redundant constraints in large real world RCC8 networks and obtaining their prime networks. For a RCC8 network N a constraint is redundant, if removing that constraint from N does not change the solution set of N. A prime network of N is a network which contains no redundant constraints, but has the same solution set as N. We make use of a particular partial consistency, namely, G-path consistency, and obtain new complexity results for various cases of RCC8 networks, while we also show that given a maximal distributive subclass for RCC8 and a network N defined on that subclass, the prunning capacity of G-path consistency and path consistency is identical on the common edges of G and the complete graph of N, when G is a triangulation of the constraint graph of N. Finally, we devise an algorithm based on G-path consistency to compute the unique prime network of a RCC8 network, and show that it significantly progresses the state-of-the-art for practical reasoning with real RCC8 networks scaling up to millions of nodes.

Fundamental to reasoning about actions and beliefs is the projection problem: to decide what is believed after a sequence of actions is performed. Progression is one widely applied technique to solve this problem. In this paper we propose a novel framework for computing progression in the epistemic situation calculus. In particular, we model an agent's preferential belief structure using conditional statements and provide a technique for updating these conditional statements as actions are performed and sensing information is received. Moreover, we show, by using the concepts of natural revision and only-believing, that the progression of a conditional knowledge base can be represented by only-believing the revised set of conditional statements. These results lay the foundations for feasible belief progression due to the unique-model property of only-believing.

We introduce a framework for qualitative reasoning about directions in high-dimensional spaces, called EER, where our main motivation is to develop a form of commonsense reasoning about semantic spaces. The proposed framework is, however, more general; we show how qualitative spatial reasoning about points with several existing calculi can be reduced to the realisability problem for EER (or REER for short), including LR and calculi for reasoning about betweenness, collinearity and parallelism. Finally, we propose an efficient but incomplete inference method, and show its effectiveness for reasoning with EER as well as reasoning with some of the aforementioned calculi.

Whereas previous work on non-deterministic planning has focused on characterizing (and computing) "loopy" but "closed" plans, we look here at the kind of environments that these plans are to be executed in. In particular, we provide a logical characterization of the standard "fairness'' assumption used, and show that strong cyclic plans are correct solution concepts for fair environments.  We argue then that such logical characterization allows us to recast non-deterministic planning as a reactive synthesis task, and show that for a special case, recent efficient synthesis techniques can be applied.

General Game Playing aims to create AI systems that can understand the rules of new games and learn to play them effectively without human intervention. The recent proposal for general game-playing robots extends this to AI systems that play games in the real world. Execution monitoring becomes a necessity when moving from a virtual to a physical environment, because in reality actions may not be executed properly and (human) opponents may make illegal game moves. We develop a formal framework for execution monitoring by which an action theory that provides an axiomatic description of a game is automatically embedded in a meta-game for a robotic player — called the arbiter — whose role is to monitor and correct failed actions. This allows for the seamless encoding of recovery behaviours within a meta-game, enabling a robot to recover from these unexpected events.

Forgetting is an important mechanism for logic-based agent systems. A recent interest has been in the desirable properties of forgetting in answer set programming  (ASP)and their impact on the design of forgetting operators. It is known that some subsets of these propertiesare incompatible, i.e., they cannot be satisfied at the same time. In this paper, we are interested in the question onthe largest set Δ of pairs (Π, V), where Π is  a logic program and V is a set of atoms, such that a forgetting operator exists that satisfies all the desirable properties for each  (Π, V) in Δ.  We answer this question positively by discovering the precise condition under which the knowledge forgetting, a well-established approach to forgetting in ASP, satisfies the property of strong persistence, which leads to a sufficient and necessary condition for a forgetting operator to satisfy all the desirable properties proposed in the literature. We explore computational complexities on checking the condition and present a syntactic characterization which can serve as the basis of computing knowledge forgetting in ASP.

The square of opposition is a structure involving two involutive negations and relating quantified statements, invented in Aristotle time. Rediscovered in the second half of the XXth century, and advocated as being of interest for understanding conceptual structures and solving problems in paraconsistent logics, the square of opposition has been recently completed into a cube, which corresponds to the introduction of a third negation. Such a cube can be encountered in very different knowledge representation formalisms, such as modal logic, possibility theory in its all-or-nothing version, formal concept analysis, rough set theory and abstract argumentation. After restating these results in a unified perspective, the paper proposes a graded extension of the cube and shows that several qualitative, as well as quantitative formalisms, such as Sugeno integrals used in multiple criteria aggregation and qualitative decision theory, or yet belief functions and Choquet integrals, are amenable to transformations that form graded cubes of opposition. This discovery leads to a new perspective on many knowledge representation formalisms, laying bare their underlying common features. The cube of opposition exhibits fruitful parallelisms between different formalisms, which leads to highlight some missing components present in one formalism and currently absent from another.

When a belief state is represented as a probability function P, the resulting belief state of the contraction of a sentence (belief) from the original belief state P can be given by the probabilistic version of the Harper Identity. Specifically, the result of contracting P by a sentence h is taken to be the mixture of two states: the original state P, and the resultant state P* ~h of revising P by the negation of h. What proportion of P and P* ~h should be used in this mixture remains an open issue and is largely ignored in literature. In this paper, we first classify different belief states by their stability, and then exploit the quantitative nature of probabilities and combine it with the basic ideas of argumentation theory to determine  the mixture proportions. We, therefore, propose a novel approach to probabilistic belief contraction using argumentation.

Many problems in computational sustainability involve constraints on connectivity. When designing a new wildlife corridor, we need it to be geographically connected. When planning the harvest of a forest, we need new areas to harvest to be connected to areas that have already been harvested so we can access them easily. And when town planning, we need to connect new homes to the existing utility infrastructure. To reason about connectivity, we propose a new family of global connectivity constraints. We identify when these constraints can be propagated tractably, and give some efficient, typically linear time propagators for when this is the case. We report results on several benchmark problems which demonstrate the efficiency of our propagation algorithms and the promise offered by reasoning globally about connectivity.