The merge-and-shrink framework has been introduced as a general approach for defining abstractions of large state spaces arising in domain-independent planning and related areas. The distinguishing characteristic of the merge-and-shrink approach is that it operates directly on the factored representation of state spaces, repeatedly modifying this representation through transformations such as shrinking (abstracting a factor of the representation), merging (combining two factors), label reduction (abstracting the way in which different factors interact), and pruning (removing states or transitions of a factor). We provide a novel view of the merge-and-shrink framework as a “toolbox” or “algebra” of transformations on factored transition systems, with the construction of abstractions as only one possible application. For each transformation, we study desirable properties such as conservativeness (overapproximating the original transition system), inducedness (absence of spurious states and transitions), and refinability (reconstruction of paths in the original transition system from the transformed one). We provide the first complete characterizations of the conditions under which these desirable properties can be achieved. We also provide the first full formal account of factored mappings, the mechanism used within the merge-and-shrink framework to establish the relationship between states in the original and transformed factored transition system. Unlike earlier attempts to develop a theory for merge-and-shrink, our approach is fully compositional: the properties of a sequence of transformations can be entirely understood by the properties of the individual transformations involved. This aspect is key to the use of merge-and-shrink as a general toolbox for transforming factored transition systems. New transformations can easily be added to our theory, with compositionality taking care of the seamless integration with the existing components. Similarly, new properties of transformations can be integrated into the theory by showing their compositionality and studying under which conditions they are satisfied by the building blocks of merge-and-shrink.

In the context of planning and reasoning about actions and change, we call an action reversible when its effects can be reverted by applying other actions, returning to the original state. Renewed interest in this area has led to several results in the context of the PDDL language, widely used for describing planning tasks. In this paper, we propose several solutions to the computational problem of deciding the reversibility of an action. In particular, we leverage an existing translation from PDDL to Answer Set Programming (ASP), and then use several different encodings to tackle the problem of action reversibility for the STRIPS fragment of PDDL. For these, we use ASP, as well as Epistemic Logic Programming (ELP), an extension of ASP with epistemic operators, and compare and contrast their strengths and weaknesses.

The Stable Roommates problem with Ties and Incomplete lists (SRTI) is a matching problem characterized by the preferences of agents over other agents as roommates, where the preferences may have ties or be incomplete. SRTI asks for a matching that is stable and, sometimes, optimizes a domain-independent fairness criterion (e.g., Egalitarian). However, in real-world applications (e.g., assigning students as roommates at a dormitory), we usually consider a variety of domain-specific criteria depending on preferences over the habits and desires of the agents. With this motivation, we introduce a knowledge-based method to SRTI considering domain-specific knowledge, and investigate its real-world application for assigning students as roommates at a university dormitory. This paper is under consideration for acceptance in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).

We provide a comprehensive elaboration of the theoretical foundations of variable instantiation, or grounding, in Answer Set Programming (ASP). Building on the semantics of ASP's modeling language, we introduce a formal characterization of grounding algorithms in terms of (fixed point) operators. A major role is played by dedicated well-founded operators whose associated models provide semantic guidance for delineating the result of grounding along with on-the-fly simplifications. We address an expressive class of logic programs that incorporates recursive aggregates and thus amounts to the scope of existing ASP modeling languages. This is accompanied with a plain algorithmic framework detailing the grounding of recursive aggregates. The given algorithms correspond essentially to the ones used in the ASP grounder gringo.

In this study we explore the spontaneous apparition of visible intelligible reasoning in simple artificial networks, and we connect this experimental observation with a notion of semantic information. We start with the reproduction of a DNN model of natural neurons in monkeys, studied by Neromyliotis and Moschovakis in 2017 and 2018, to explain how "motor equivalent neurons", coding only for the action of pointing, are supplemented by other neurons for specifying the actor of the action, the eye E, the hand H, or the eye and the hand together EH. There appear inner neurons performing a logical work, making intermediary proposition, for instance E V EH. Then, we remarked that adding a second hidden layer and choosing a symmetric metric for learning, the activities of the neurons become almost quantized and more informative. Using the work of Carnap and Bar-Hillel 1952, we define a measure of the logical value for collections of such cells. The logical score growths with the depth of the layer, i.e. the information on the output decision increases, which confirms a kind of bottleneck principle. Then we study a bit more complex tasks, a priori involving predicate logic. We compare the logic and the measured weights. This shows, for groups of neurons, a neat correlation between the logical score and the size of the weights. It exhibits a form of sparsity between the layers. The most spectacular result concerns the triples which can conclude for all conditions: when applying their weight matrices to their logical matrix, we recover the classification. This shows that weights precisely perform the proofs.

Modal logic S5 has attracted significant attention and has led to several practical applications, owing to its simplified approach to dealing with nesting modal operators. Efficient implementations for evaluating satisfiability of S5 formulas commonly rely on Skolemisation to convert them into propositional logic formulas, essentially by introducing copies of propositional atoms for each set of interpretations (possible worlds). This approach is simple, but often results into large formulas that are too difficult to process, and therefore more parsimonious constructions are required. In this work, we propose to use Answer Set Programming for implementing such constructions, and in particular for identifying the propositional atoms that are relevant in every world by means of a reachability relation. The proposed encodings are designed to take advantage of other properties such as entailment relations of subformulas rooted by modal operators. An empirical assessment of the proposed encodings shows that the reachability relation is very effective and leads to comparable performance to a state-of-the-art S5 solver based on SAT, while entailment relations are possibly too expensive to reason about and may result in overhead. This paper is under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.

Assumption-based argumentation (ABA) is a central structured argumentation formalism. As shown recently, answer set programming (ASP) enables efficiently solving NP-hard reasoning tasks of ABA in practice, in particular in the commonly studied logic programming fragment of ABA. In this work, we harness recent advances in incremental ASP solving for developing effective algorithms for reasoning tasks in the logic programming fragment of ABA that are presumably hard for the second level of the polynomial hierarchy, including skeptical reasoning under preferred semantics as well as preferential reasoning. In particular, we develop non-trivial counterexample-guided abstraction refinement procedures based on incremental ASP solving for these tasks. We also show empirically that the procedures are significantly more effective than previously proposed algorithms for the tasks. This paper is under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.

Over the past decades, Answer Set Programming (ASP) has emerged as an important paradigm for declarative problem solving. Technological progress in this area has been stimulated by the use of common standards, such as the ASP-Core-2 language. While ASP has its roots in non-monotonic reasoning, efforts have also been made to reconcile ASP with classical first-order logic (FO). This has resulted in the development of FO(.), an expressive extension of FO, which allows ASP-like problem solving in a purely classical setting. This language may be more accessible to domain experts already familiar with FO, and may be easier to combine with other formalisms that are based on classical logic. It is supported by the IDP inference system, which has successfully competed in a number of ASP competitions. Here, however, technological progress has been hampered by the limited number of systems that are available for FO(.). In this paper, we aim to address this gap by means of a translation tool that transforms an FO(.) specification into ASP-Core-2, thereby allowing ASP-Core-2 solvers to be used as solvers for FO(.) as well. We present experimental results to show that the resulting combination of our translation with an off-the-shelf ASP solver is competitive with the IDP system as a way of solving problems formulated in FO(.). Under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.

Given a combinatorial search problem, it may be highly useful to enumerate its (all) solutions besides just finding one solution, or showing that none exists. The same can be stated about optimal solutions if an objective function is provided. This work goes beyond the bare enumeration of optimal solutions and addresses the computational task of solution enumeration by optimality (SEO). This task is studied in the context of Answer Set Programming (ASP) where (optimal) solutions of a problem are captured with the answer sets of a logic program encoding the problem. Existing answer-set solvers already support the enumeration of all (optimal) answer sets. However, in this work, we generalize the enumeration of optimal answer sets beyond strictly optimal ones, giving rise to the idea of answer set enumeration in the order of optimality (ASEO). This approach is applicable up to the best k answer sets or in an unlimited setting, which amounts to a process of sorting answer sets based on the objective function. As the main contribution of this work, we present the first general algorithms for the aforementioned tasks of answer set enumeration. Moreover, we illustrate the potential use cases of ASEO. First, we study how efficiently access to the next-best solutions can be achieved in a number of optimization problems that have been formalized and solved in ASP. Second, we show that ASEO provides us with an effective sampling technique for Bayesian networks.

Logic Programs with Ordered Disjunction (LPODs) extend classical logic programs with the capability of expressing alternatives with decreasing degrees of preference in the heads of program rules. Despite the fact that the operational meaning of ordered disjunction is clear, there exists an important open issue regarding its semantics. In particular, there does not exist a purely model-theoretic approach for determining the most preferred models of an LPOD. At present, the selection of the most preferred models is performed using a technique that is not based exclusively on the models of the program and in certain cases produces counterintuitive results. We provide a novel, model-theoretic semantics for LPODs, which uses an additional truth value in order to identify the most preferred models of a program. We demonstrate that the proposed approach overcomes the shortcomings of the traditional semantics of LPODs. Moreover, the new approach can be used to define the semantics of a natural class of logic programs that can have both ordered and classical disjunctions in the heads of clauses. This allows programs that can express not only strict levels of preferences but also alternatives that are equally preferred. This work is under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.