Domain-independent planning requires only to specify planning problems in a standard language (e.g. PDDL) in order to utilise planning in some application. Despite a huge advancement in domain-independent planning, some relatively-easy problems are still challenging for existing planning engines. Such an issue can be mitigated by specifying Domain Control Knowledge (DCK) that can provide better guidance for planning engines. In this paper, we introduce transition-based DCK, inspired by Finite State Automata, that is efficient as demonstrated empirically, planner-independent (can be encoded within planning problems) and easy to specify.

In this report from the field we describe jArgSemSAT, a Java re-implementation of ArgSemSAT. We show that jArgSemSAT can be easily integrated in existing argumentation systems (1) as an off-the-shelf, standalone, library; (2) as a Tweety compatible library; and (3) as a fast and robust web service freely available on the Web. The performance section shows that — despite being written in Java — jArgSemSAT is very efficient w.r.t. preferred semantics, which has associated problems with high computational complexity.

We consider the problem of obtaining coherence in a propositional knowledge base using techniques from Belief Change. Our motivation comes from the field of formal ontologies where coherence is interpreted to mean that a concept name has to be satisfiable. In the propositional case we consider here, this translates to a propositional formula being satisfiable. We define belief change operators in a framework of nonmonotonic preferential reasoning.We show how the introduction of defeasible information using contraction operators can be an effective means for obtaining coherence.

We study the logical properties of the (parametric) well-founded fixed point operation. We show that the operation satisfies several, but not all of the equational properties of fixed point operations described by the axioms of iteration theories.

Probabilistic logic programs without negation can have cycles (with a preference for false), but cannot represent all conditional distributions. Probabilistic logic programs with negation can represent arbitrary conditional probabilities, but with cycles they create logical inconsistencies. We show how allowing negative noise probabilities allows us to represent arbitrary conditional probabilities without negations. Noise probabilities for non-exclusive rules are difficult to interpret and unintuitive to manipulate; to alleviate this we define ``probability-strengths'' which provide an intuitive additive algebra for combining rules. For acyclic programs we prove what constraints on the strengths allow for proper distributions on the non-noise variables and allow for all non-extreme distributions to be represented. We show how arbitrary CPDs can be converted into this form in a canonical way. Furthermore, if a joint distribution can be compactly represented by a cyclic program with negations, we show how it can also be compactly represented with negative noise probabilities and no negations. This allows algorithms for exact inference that do not support negations to be applicable to probabilistic logic programs with negations.

We consider knowledge representation (KR) formalisms as collections of finite knowledge bases with a model-theoretic semantics. In this setting, we show that for every KR formalism there is a formalism that characterizes strong equivalence in the original formalism, that is unique up to isomorphism and that has a model theory similar to classical logic.

In the study of argumentation-based reasoning, argument justification has received far more attention than statement justification, often treated as a simple byproduct of the former. As a consequence, counterintuitive results and significant losses of sensitivity can be identified in the treatment of statement justification by otherwise appealing formalisms. To overcome this limitation, we propose to reappraise statement justification as a formalism-independent component. To this purpose, we introduce a novel general model of argumentation-based reasoning based on multiple levels of labellings, one of which is devoted to statement justification. This model is able to encompass several literature proposals as special cases: we illustrate this ability for the case of the ASPIC+ formalism and provide a first example of tunable statement justification in this context.

Agent supervision is a form of control/customization where a supervisor restricts the behavior of an agent to enforce certain requirements, while leaving the agent as much autonomy as possible. In this work, we investigate supervision of an agent that may acquire new knowledge about her environment during execution, for example, by sensing. Thus we consider an agent's online executions, where, as she executes the program, at each time point she must make decisions on what to do next based on what her current knowledge is. This is done in a setting based on the situation calculus and a variant of the ConGolog programming language. To reason about such agents, we first define a notion of online situation-determined agent which ensures that for any sequence of actions that the agent can perform online, the resulting agent configuration is unique. We then present our formalization of the online maximally permissive supervisor.

We propose a general framework for inconsistency-tolerant query answering within existential rule setting. This framework unifies the main semantics proposed by the state of art and introduces new ones based on cardinality and majority principles. It relies on two key notions: modifiers and inference strategies. An inconsistency-tolerant semantics is seen as a composite modifier plus an inference strategy. We compare the obtained semantics from a productivity point of view.

Reasoning with the maximally consistent subsets (MCS) of the premises is awell-known approach for handling contradictory information. We introduce two argumentation-based methods for doing so: a declarative approach that is related to Dung-style semantics for abstract argumentation, and a computational approach that is based on extensions of Gentzen-type proofs systems. This brings about a new perspective on reasoning with MCS which shows a strong link between the latter and argumentation systems, and which can be extended to related formalisms. A by-product of this is the introduction of a dynamic proof system for classical logic and rebuttal attacks, which is sound and complete with respect to Dung's stable semantics for the associated argumentation framework.