Large knowledge bases (KBs) are useful for many AI tasks, but are difficult to integrate into modern gradient-based learning systems. Here we describe a framework for accessing soft symbolic database using only differentiable operators. For example, this framework makes it easy to conveniently write neural models that adjust confidences associated with facts in a soft KB; incorporate prior knowledge in the form of hand-coded KB access rules; or learn to instantiate query templates using information extracted from text. NQL can work well with KBs with millions of tuples and hundreds of thousands of entities on a single GPU.

Forgetting as a knowledge management operation has received much less attention than operations like inference, or revision. It was mainly in the area of logic programming that techniques and axiomatic properties have been studied systematically. However, at least from a cognitive view, forgetting plays an important role in restructuring and reorganizing a human's mind, and it is closely related to notions like relevance and independence which are crucial to knowledge representation and reasoning. In this paper, we propose axiomatic properties of (intentional) forgetting for general epistemic frameworks which are inspired by those for logic programming, and we evaluate various forgetting operations which have been proposed recently by Beierle et al. according to them. The general aim of this paper is to advance formal studies of (intentional) forgetting operators while capturing the many facets of forgetting in a unifying framework in which different forgetting operators can be contrasted and distinguished by means of formal properties.

Automated Planning is one of the main research field of Artificial Intelligence since its beginnings. Research in Automated Planning aims at developing general reasoners (i.e., planners) capable of automatically solve complex problems. Broadly speaking, planners rely on a general model characterizing the possible states of the world and the actions that can be performed in order to change the status of the world. Given a model and an initial known state, the objective of a planner is to synthesize a set of actions needed to achieve a particular goal state. The classical approach to planning roughly corresponds to the description given above. The timeline-based approach is a particular planning paradigm capable of integrating causal and temporal reasoning within a unified solving process. This approach has been successfully applied in many real-world scenarios although a common interpretation of the related planning concepts is missing. Indeed, there are significant differences among the existing frameworks that apply this technique. Each framework relies on its own interpretation of timeline-based planning and therefore it is not easy to compare these systems. Thus, the objective of this work is to investigate the timeline-based approach to planning by addressing several aspects ranging from the semantics of the related planning concepts to the modeling and solving techniques. Specifically, the main contributions of this PhD work consist of: (i) the proposal of a formal characterization of the timeline-based approach capable of dealing with temporal uncertainty; (ii) the proposal of a hierarchical modeling and solving approach; (iii) the development of a general purpose framework for planning and execution with timelines; (iv) the validation{\dag}of this approach in real-world manufacturing scenarios.

In this paper we show several similarities among logic systems that deal simultaneously with deductive and quantitative inference. We claim it is appropriate to call the tasks those systems perform as Quantitative Logic Reasoning. Analogous properties hold throughout that class, for whose members there exists a set of linear algebraic techniques applicable in the study of satisfiability decision problems. In this presentation, we consider as Quantitative Logic Reasoning the tasks performed by propositional Probabilistic Logic; first-order logic with counting quantifiers over a fragment containing unary and limited binary predicates; and propositional Lukasiewicz Infinitely-valued Probabilistic Logic

Controlled natural languages (CNLs) are effective languages for knowledge representation and reasoning. They are designed based on certain natural languages with restricted lexicon and grammar. CNLs are unambiguous and simple as opposed to their base languages. They preserve the expressiveness and coherence of natural languages. In this report, we focus on a class of CNLs, called machine-oriented CNLs, which have well-defined semantics that can be deterministically translated into formal languages, such as Prolog, to do logical reasoning. Over the past 20 years, a number of machine-oriented CNLs emerged and have been used in many application domains for problem solving and question answering. However, few of them support non-monotonic inference. In our work, we propose non-monotonic extensions of CNL to support defeasible reasoning. In the first part of this report, we survey CNLs and compare three influential systems: Attempto Controlled English (ACE), Processable English (PENG), and Computer-processable English (CPL). We compare their language design, semantic interpretations, and reasoning services. In the second part of this report, we first identify typical non-monotonicity in natural languages, such as defaults, exceptions and conversational implicatures. Then, we propose their representation in CNL and the corresponding formalizations in a form of defeasible reasoning known as Logic Programming with Defaults and Argumentation Theory (LPDA).

Justification theory is a unifying framework for semantics of non-monotonic logics. It is built on the notion of a justification, which intuitively is a graph that explains the truth value of certain facts in a structure. Knowledge representation languages covered by justification theory include logic programs, argumentation frameworks, inductive definitions, and nested inductive and coinductive definitions. In addition, justifications are also used for implementation purposes. They are used to compute unfounded sets in modern ASP solvers, can be used to check for relevance of atoms in complete search algorithms, and recent lazy grounding algorithms are built on top of them. In this extended abstract, we lay out possible extensions to justification theory.

We consider bounded width CNF-formulas where the width is measured by popular graph width measures on graphs associated to CNF-formulas. Such restricted graph classes, in particular those of bounded treewidth, have been extensively studied for their uses in the design of algorithms for various computational problems on CNF-formulas. Here we consider the expressivity of these formulas in the model of clausal encodings with auxiliary variables. We first show that bounding the width for many of the measures from the literature leads to a dramatic loss of expressivity, restricting the formulas to such of low communication complexity. We then show that the width of optimal encodings with respect to different measures is strongly linked: there are two classes of width measures, one containing primal treewidth and the other incidence cliquewidth, such that in each class the width of optimal encodings only differs by constant factors. Moreover, between the two classes the width differs at most by a factor logarithmic in the number of variables. Both these results are in stark contrast to the setting without auxiliary variables where all width measures we consider here differ by more than constant factors and in many cases even by linear factors.

We propose novel algorithms for design and design space exploration. The designs computed by these algorithms are compositions of function types specified in component libraries. Our algorithms reduce the design problem to quantified satisfiability and use advanced solvers to find solutions that represent useful systems. The algorithms we present in this paper are sound and complete and are guaranteed to discover correct designs of optimal size, if they exist. We apply our method to the design of Boolean systems and discover new and more optimal classical and quantum circuits for common arithmetic functions such as addition and multiplication. The performance of our algorithms is evaluated through extensive experimentation. We have first created a benchmark consisting of specifications of scalable synthetic digital circuits and real-world mirochips. We have then generated multiple circuits functionally equivalent to the ones in the benchmark. The quantified satisfiability method shows more than four orders of magnitude speed-up, compared to a generate and test method that enumerates all non-isomorphic circuit topologies. Our approach generalizes circuit optimization. It uses arbitrary component libraries and has applications to areas such as digital circuit design, diagnostics, abductive reasoning, test vector generation, and combinatorial optimization.

The paper describes a preferential approach for dealing with exceptions in KLM preferential logics, based on the rational closure. It is well known that the rational closure does not allow an independent handling of the inheritance of different defeasible properties of concepts. Several solutions have been proposed to face this problem and the lexicographic closure is the most notable one. In this work, we consider an alternative closure construction, called the Multi Preference closure (MP-closure), that has been first considered for reasoning with exceptions in DLs. Here, we reconstruct the notion of MP-closure in the propositional case and we show that it is a natural variant of Lehmann's lexicographic closure. Abandoning Maximal Entropy (an alternative route already considered but not explored by Lehmann) leads to a construction which exploits a different lexicographic ordering w.r.t. the lexicographic closure, and determines a preferential consequence relation rather than a rational consequence relation. We show that, building on the MP-closure semantics, rationality can be recovered, at least from the semantic point of view, resulting in a rational consequence relation which is stronger than the rational closure, but incomparable with the lexicographic closure. We also show that the MP-closure is stronger than the Relevant Closure.

While in recent years machine learning (ML) based approaches have been the popular approach in developing end-to-end question answering systems, such systems often struggle when additional knowledge is needed to correctly answer the questions. Proposed alternatives involve translating the question and the natural language text to a logical representation and then use logical reasoning. However, this alternative falters when the size of the text gets bigger. To address this we propose an approach that does logical reasoning over premises written in natural language text. The proposed method uses recent features of Answer Set Programming (ASP) to call external NLP modules (which may be based on ML) which perform simple textual entailment. To test our approach we develop a corpus based on the life cycle questions and showed that Our system achieves up to $18\%$ performance gain when compared to standard MCQ solvers.