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.

Qualitative reasoning involves expressing and deriving knowledge based on qualitative terms such as natural language expressions, rather than strict mathematical quantities. Well over 40 qualitative calculi have been proposed so far, mostly in the spatial and temporal domains, with several practical applications such as naval traffic monitoring, warehouse process optimisation and robot manipulation. Even if a number of specialised qualitative reasoning tools have been developed so far, an important barrier to the wider adoption of these tools is that only qualitative reasoning is supported natively, when real-world problems most often require a combination of qualitative and other forms of reasoning. In this work, we propose to overcome this barrier by using ASP as a unifying formalism to tackle problems that require qualitative reasoning in addition to non-qualitative reasoning. A family of ASP encodings is proposed which can handle any qualitative calculus with binary relations. These encodings are experimentally evaluated using a real-world dataset based on a case study of determining optimal coverage of telecommunication antennas, and compared with the performance of two well-known dedicated reasoners. Experimental results show that the proposed encodings outperform one of the two reasoners, but fall behind the other, an acceptable trade-off given the added benefits of handling any type of reasoning as well as the interpretability of logic programs. This paper is under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.

Justification theory is a unifying semantic framework. While it has its roots in non-monotonic logics, it can be applied to various areas in computer science, especially in explainable reasoning; its most central concept is a justification: an explanation why a property holds (or does not hold) in a model. In this paper, we continue the study of justification theory by means of three major contributions. The first is studying the relation between justification theory and game theory. We show that justification frameworks can be seen as a special type of games. The established connection provides the theoretical foundations for our next two contributions. The second contribution is studying under which condition two different dialects of justification theory (graphs as explanations vs trees as explanations) coincide. The third contribution is establishing a precise criterion of when a semantics induced by justification theory yields consistent results. In the past proving that such semantics were consistent took cumbersome and elaborate proofs. We show that these criteria are indeed satisfied for all common semantics of logic programming. This paper is under consideration for acceptance in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).

General Game Playing (GGP) is a framework in which an artificial intelligence program is required to play a variety of games successfully. It acts as a test bed for AI and motivator of research. The AI is given a random game description at runtime which it then plays. The framework includes repositories of game rules. The Inductive General Game Playing (IGGP) problem challenges machine learning systems to learn these GGP game rules by watching the game being played. In other words, IGGP is the problem of inducing general game rules from specific game observations. Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) has shown to be a promising approach to this problem though it has been demonstrated that it is still a hard problem for ILP systems. Existing work on IGGP has always assumed that the game player being observed makes random moves. This is not representative of how a human learns to play a game. With random gameplay situations that would normally be encountered when humans play are not present. To address this limitation, we analyse the effect of using intelligent versus random gameplay traces as well as the effect of varying the number of traces in the training set. We use Sancho, the 2014 GGP competition winner, to generate intelligent game traces for a large number of games. We then use the ILP systems, Metagol, Aleph and ILASP to induce game rules from the traces. We train and test the systems on combinations of intelligent and random data including a mixture of both. We also vary the volume of training data. Our results show that whilst some games were learned more effectively in some of the experiments than others no overall trend was statistically significant. The implications of this work are that varying the quality of training data as described in this paper has strong effects on the accuracy of the learned game rules; however one solution does not work for all games.

Formal Methods for Web Services PDF Download for free: Book Description: This book presents papers from the lectures of leading researchers given at the Ninth International School on Formal Methods for the Design of Computer, Communication and Software Systems, SFM 2009, which was devoted to formal methods for web services.