Answer set programming (ASP) is an efficient problem-solving approach, which has been strongly supported both scientifically and technologically by several solvers, ongoing active research, and implementations in many different fields. However, although researchers acknowledged long ago the necessity of epistemic operators in the language of ASP for better introspective reasoning, this research venue did not attract much attention until recently. Moreover, the existing epistemic extensions of ASP in the literature are not widely approved either, due to the fact that some propose unintended results even for some simple acyclic epistemic programs, new unexpected results may possibly be found, and more importantly, researchers have different reasonings for some critical programs. To that end, Cabalar et al. have recently identified some structural properties of epistemic programs to formally support a possible semantics proposal of such programs and standardise their results. Nonetheless, the soundness of these properties is still under debate, and they are not widely accepted either by the ASP community. Thus, it seems that there is still time to really understand the paradigm, have a mature formalism, and determine the principles providing formal justification of their understandable models. In this paper, we mainly focus on the existing semantics approaches, the criteria that a satisfactory semantics is supposed to satisfy, and the ways to improve them. We also extend some well-known propositions of here-and-there logic (HT) into epistemic HT so as to reveal the real behaviour of programs. Finally, we propose a slightly novel semantics for epistemic ASP, which can be considered as a reflexive extension of Cabalar et al.'s recent formalism called autoepistemic ASP.

Weighted knowledge bases for description logics with typicality have been recently considered under a "concept-wise" multipreference semantics (in both the two-valued and fuzzy case), as the basis of a logical semantics of Multilayer Perceptrons. In this paper we consider weighted conditional EL^bot knowledge bases in the two-valued case, and exploit ASP and asprin for encoding concept-wise multipreference entailment for weighted KBs with integer weights.

SHACL is a W3C-proposed language for expressing structural constraints on RDF graphs. The recommendation only specifies semantics for non-recursive SHACL; recently, some efforts have been made to allow recursive SHACL schemas. In this paper, we argue that for defining and studying semantics of recursive SHACL, lessons can be learned from years of research in non-monotonic reasoning. We show that from a SHACL schema, a three-valued semantic operator can directly be obtained. Building on Approximation Fixpoint Theory (AFT), this operator immediately induces a wide variety of semantics, including a supported, stable, and well-founded semantics, related in the expected ways. By building on AFT, a rich body of theoretical results becomes directly available for SHACL. As such, the main contribution of this short paper is providing theoretical foundations for the study of recursive SHACL, which can later enable an informed decision for an extension of the W3C recommendation.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a successful method for solving a range of real-world applications. Despite the availability of fast ASP solvers, computing answer sets demands a very large computational power, since the problem tackled is in the second level of the polynomial hierarchy. A speed-up in answer set computation may be attained, if the program can be split into two disjoint parts, bottom and top. Thus, the bottom part is evaluated independently of the top part, and the results of the bottom part evaluation are used to simplify the top part. Lifschitz and Turner have introduced the concept of a splitting set, i.e., a set of atoms that defines the splitting. In this paper, We show that the problem of computing a splitting set with some desirable properties can be reduced to a classic Search Problem and solved in polynomial time. This allows us to conduct experiments on the size of the splitting set in various programs and lead to an interesting discovery of a source of complication in stable model computation. We also show that for Head-Cycle-Free programs, the definition of splitting sets can be adjusted to allow splitting of a broader class of programs.

The power and expressivity of Probabilistic Logic Programming (PLP) [8, 18] have been utilized to represent many real world situations [2, 9, 14]. Usually, probabilistic logic programs involve only discrete random variables with Bernoulli or Categorical distributions. Numerous solutions emerged to also handle continuous distributions [10, 12, 25], increasing the expressiveness of PLP and giving birth to hybrid probabilistic logic programs, that is, programs that include discrete and continuous random variables. Inference in this type of programs is hard since it combines the complexity of the grounding computation with the intractability of a distribution defined by a mixture of random variables. Usually, inference in general hybrid probabilistic logic programs (i.e., without imposing restrictions on the type of distributions allowed) is done by leveraging knowledge compilation and using external solvers [25] or by sampling [4, 16].

While propositional Answer Set Programming (ASP) is already NP-hard and therefore powerful enough to express many challenging problems, their specification can be tedious and complicated. Further, there are relevant problems that require higher expressivity or reasoning over data that changes with time. This and the practical usage of ASP gave rise to a need for a simpler, more expressive, and more concise specification language [1, 11]. Thus, ASP was extended in multiple directions. We focus on the following ones: 1. Time Domain (TD): In [5] ASP-semantics were combined with a temporal context resulting in the Logic-based framework for Analytic Reasoning over Streams (LARS). Here, interpretations assign possibly different sets of facts to time points. Accordingly, the input language was extended with operators like, corresponding to existential quantification over time points. Another temporal extension of ASP is Temporal Equilibrium Logic (TEL) [9].

Representing and reasoning about dynamic domains is a key problem in the field of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Dynamic and temporal logics are used to describe ordered events, thus they have been adopted as a powerful tool to handle domains where we need to capture actions and change. While most of the research around these formalisms is grounded on classical logic, there is a growing interest to incorporate such dynamic specifications to reason in a non-monotonic manner. One of the main candidates for modeling and solving problems with this type of logic is Answer Set Programming (ASP) [8]. ASP is a well-established approach to declarative problem solving where problems are encoded in the form of logic programs.

We introduce an inductive logic programming approach that combines classical divide-and-conquer search with modern constraint-driven search. Our anytime approach can learn optimal, recursive, and large programs and supports predicate invention. Our experiments on three domains (classification, inductive general game playing, and program synthesis) show that our approach can increase predictive accuracies and reduce learning times.

Multi-core machines are ubiquitous. However, most inductive logic programming (ILP) approaches use only a single core, which severely limits their scalability. To address this limitation, we introduce parallel techniques based on constraint-driven ILP where the goal is to accumulate constraints to restrict the hypothesis space. Our experiments on two domains (program synthesis and inductive general game playing) show that (i) parallelisation can substantially reduce learning times, and (ii) worker communication (i.e. sharing constraints) is important for good performance.

ICLP is the premier international event for presenting research in logic programming. Contributions to ICLP 2021 were sought in all areas of logic programming, including but not limited to: Foundations: Semantics, Formalisms, Nonmonotonic reasoning, Knowledge representation. Languages issues: Concurrency, Objects, Coordination, Mobility, Higher order, Types, Modes, Assertions, Modules, Meta-programming, Logic-based domain-specific languages, Programming techniques. Programming support: Program analysis, Transformation, Validation, Verification, Debugging, Profiling, Testing, Execution visualization. Implementation: Compilation, Virtual machines, Memory management, Parallel and Distributed execution, Constraint handling rules, Tabling, Foreign interfaces, User interfaces. Related Paradigms and Synergies: Inductive and coinductive logic programming, Constraint logic programming, Answer set programming, Interaction with SAT, SMT and CSP solvers, Theorem proving, Argumentation, Probabilistic programming, Machine learning. Applications: Databases, Big data, Data integration and federation, Software engineering, Natural language processing, Web and semantic web, Agents, Artificial intelligence, Computational life sciences, Cyber-security, Robotics, Education.