Designing agents that reason and act upon the world has always been one of the main objectives of the Artificial Intelligence community. While for planning in "simple" domains the agents can solely rely on facts about the world, in several contexts, e.g., economy, security, justice and politics, the mere knowledge of the world could be insufficient to reach a desired goal. In these scenarios, epistemic reasoning, i.e., reasoning about agents' beliefs about themselves and about other agents' beliefs, is essential to design winning strategies. This paper addresses the problem of reasoning in multi-agent epistemic settings exploiting declarative programming techniques. In particular, the paper presents an actual implementation of a multi-shot Answer Set Programming-based planner that can reason in multi-agent epistemic settings, called PLATO (ePistemic muLti-agent Answer seT programming sOlver). The ASP paradigm enables a concise and elegant design of the planner, w.r.t. other imperative implementations, facilitating the development of formal verification of correctness. The paper shows how the planner, exploiting an ad-hoc epistemic state representation and the efficiency of ASP solvers, has competitive performance results on benchmarks collected from the literature. It is under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.

The Stable Roommates problem (SR) is characterized by the preferences of agents over other agents as roommates: each agent ranks all others in strict order of preference. A solution to SR is then a partition of the agents into pairs so that each pair shares a room, and there is no pair of agents that would block this matching (i.e., who prefers the other to their roommate in the matching). There are interesting variations of SR that are motivated by applications (e.g., the preference lists may be incomplete (SRI) and involve ties (SRTI)), and that try to find a more fair solution (e.g., Egalitarian SR). Unlike the Stable Marriage problem, every SR instance is not guaranteed to have a solution. For that reason, there are also variations of SR that try to find a good-enough solution (e.g., Almost SR). Most of these variations are NP-hard. We introduce a formal framework, called SRTI-ASP, utilizing the logic programming paradigm Answer Set Programming, that is provable and general enough to solve many of such variations of SR. Our empirical analysis shows that SRTI-ASP is also promising for applications. This paper is under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.

In this chapter, we present an approach using formal methods to synthesize reactive defense strategy in a cyber network, equipped with a set of decoy systems. We first generalize formal graphical security models--attack graphs--to incorporate defender's countermeasures in a game-theoretic model, called an attack-defend game on graph. This game captures the dynamic interactions between the defender and the attacker and their defense/attack objectives in formal logic. Then, we introduce a class of hypergames to model asymmetric information created by decoys in the attacker-defender interactions. Given qualitative security specifications in formal logic, we show that the solution concepts from hypergames and reactive synthesis in formal methods can be extended to synthesize effective dynamic defense strategy using cyber deception. The strategy takes the advantages of the misperception of the attacker to ensure security specification is satisfied, which may not be satisfiable when the information is symmetric.

Generalising and re-using knowledge learned while solving one problem instance has been neglected by state-of-the-art answer set solvers. We suggest a new approach that generalises learned nogoods for re-use to speed-up the solving of future problem instances. Our solution combines well-known ASP solving techniques with deductive logic-based machine learning. Solving performance can be improved by adding learned non-ground constraints to the original program. We demonstrate the effects of our method by means of realistic examples, showing that our approach requires low computational cost to learn constraints that yield significant performance benefits in our test cases. These benefits can be seen with ground-and-solve systems as well as lazy-grounding systems. However, ground-and-solve systems suffer from additional grounding overheads, induced by the additional constraints in some cases. By means of conflict minimization, non-minimal learned constraints can be reduced. This can result in significant reductions of grounding and solving efforts, as our experiments show. (Under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.)

In applications that use knowledge representation (KR) techniques, in particular those that combine data-driven and logic methods, the domain of objects is not an abstract unstructured domain, but it exhibits a dedicated, deep structure of geometric objects. One example is the class of convex sets used to model natural concepts in conceptual spaces, which also links via convex optimization techniques to machine learning. In this paper we study logics for such geometric structures. Using the machinery of lattice theory, we describe an extension of minimal orthologic with a partial modularity rule that holds for closed convex cones. This logic combines a feasible data structure (exploiting convexity/conicity) with sufficient expressivity, including full orthonegation (exploiting conicity).

The repeated execution of reasoning tasks is desirable in many applicative scenarios, such as stream reasoning and event processing. When using answer set programming in such contexts, one can avoid the iterative generation of ground programs thus achieving a significant payoff in terms of computing time. However, this may require some additional amount of memory and/or the manual addition of operational directives in the declarative knowledge base at hand. We introduce a new strategy for generating series of monotonically growing propositional programs. The proposed overgrounded programs with tailoring (OPTs) can be updated and reused in combination with consecutive inputs. With respect to earlier approaches, our tailored simplification technique reduces the size of instantiated programs. A maintained OPT slowly grows in size from an iteration to another while the update cost decreases, especially in later iterations. In this paper we formally introduce tailored embeddings, a family of equivalence-preserving ground programs which are at the theoretical basis of OPTs and we describe their properties. We then illustrate an OPT update algorithm and report about our implementation and its performance. This paper is under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).

Decision support systems play an important role in medical fields as they can augment clinicians to deal more efficiently and effectively with complex decision-making processes. In the diagnosis of headache disorders, however, existing approaches and tools are still not optimal. On the one hand, to support the diagnosis of this complex and vast spectrum of disorders, the International Headache Society released in 1988 the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD), now in its 3rd edition: a 200 pages document classifying more than 300 different kinds of headaches, where each is identified via a collection of specific nontrivial diagnostic criteria. On the other hand, the high number of headache disorders and their complex criteria make the medical history process inaccurate and not exhaustive both for clinicians and existing automatic tools. To fill this gap, we present HEAD-ASP, a novel decision support system for the diagnosis of headache disorders. Through a REST Web Service, HEAD-ASP implements a dynamic questionnaire that complies with ICHD-3 by exploiting two logical modules to reach a complete diagnosis while trying to minimize the total number of questions being posed to patients. Finally, HEAD-ASP is freely available on-line and it is receiving very positive feedback from the group of neurologists that is testing it.

Recently there has been an increasing interest in frameworks extending Dung's abstract Argumentation Framework (AF). Popular extensions include bipolar AFs and AFs with recursive attacks and necessary supports. Although the relationships between AF semantics and Partial Stable Models (PSMs) of logic programs has been deeply investigated, this is not the case for more general frameworks extending AF. In this paper we explore the relationships between AF-based frameworks and PSMs. We show that every AF-based framework $\Delta$ can be translated into a logic program $P_\Delta$ so that the extensions prescribed by different semantics of $\Delta$ coincide with subsets of the PSMs of $P_\Delta$. We provide a logic programming approach that characterizes, in an elegant and uniform way, the semantics of several AF-based frameworks. This result allows also to define the semantics for new AF-based frameworks, such as AFs with recursive attacks and recursive deductive supports. Under consideration for publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

Real-valued logics underlie an increasing number of neuro-symbolic approaches, though typically their logical inference capabilities are characterized only qualitatively. We provide foundations for establishing the correctness and power of such systems. For the first time, we give a sound and complete axiomatization for a broad class containing all the common real-valued logics. This axiomatization allows us to derive exactly what information can be inferred about the combinations of real values of a collection of formulas given information about the combinations of real values of several other collections of formulas. We then extend the axiomatization to deal with weighted subformulas. Finally, we give a decision procedure based on linear programming for deciding, under certain natural assumptions, whether a set of our sentences logically implies another of our sentences.

We describe eclingo, a solver for epistemic logic programs under Gelfond 1991 semantics built upon the Answer Set Programming system clingo. The input language of eclingo uses the syntax extension capabilities of clingo to define subjective literals that, as usual in epistemic logic programs, allow for checking the truth of a regular literal in all or in some of the answer sets of a program. The eclingo solving process follows a guess and check strategy. It first generates potential truth values for subjective literals and, in a second step, it checks the obtained result with respect to the cautious and brave consequences of the program. This process is implemented using the multi-shot functionalities of clingo. We have also implemented some optimisations, aiming at reducing the search space and, therefore, increasing eclingo's efficiency in some scenarios. Finally, we compare the efficiency of eclingo with two state-of-the-art solvers for epistemic logic programs on a pair of benchmark scenarios and show that eclingo generally outperforms their obtained results. Under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.