Many approaches for forgetting in Answer Set Programming (ASP) have been proposed in recent years, in the form of specific operators, or classes of operators, following different principles and obeying different properties. Whereas each approach was developed to somehow address some particular view on forgetting, thus aimed at obeying a specific set of properties deemed adequate for such view, we are lacking a comprehensive and uniform overview of existing operators and properties. We aim at overcoming this by thoroughly examining existing properties and (classes of) operators for forgetting in ASP, drawing a complete picture, which includes many novel (even surprising) results on relations between properties and operators. Our goal is to provide a guide to help users in choosing the most adequate operator for their application requirements.

This paper is set to study the applicability of AGM-like operations to probabilistic bases. We focus on the problem of consistency restoration, also called consolidation or contraction by falsity. We aim to identify the reasons why the set of AGM postulates based on discrete operations of deletions and accretions is too coarse to treat finely adjustable probabilistic formulas. We propose new principles that allow one to deal with the consolidation of inconsistent probabilistic bases, presenting a finer method called liftable contraction. Furthermore, we show that existing methods for probabilistic consolidation via distance minimization are particular cases of the methods proposed.

We survey a selection of inconsistency measures from the literature and investigate their computational complexity wrt. decision problems related to bounds on the inconsistency value and the functional problem of determining the actual value. Our findings show that those inconsistency measures can be partitioned into three classes related to their complexity. The first class contains measures whose complexity are located on the first level of the polynomial hierarchy, the second class contains measures on the second level of the polynomial hierarchy, and the third class is located beyond the second level of the polynomial hierarchy. We provide membership results for all the investigated problems and completeness results for most of them.

Lifting a recent proposal by Moreno-Centeno and Karp, we propose a general framework for so-called implicit hitting set algorithms for reasoning beyond NP. The framework is motivated by empirically successful specific instantiations of the approach---based on interactions between a Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solver and an integer programming (IP) solver---in the context of maximum satisfiability (MaxSAT). The framework opens up opportunities for developing implicit hitting set algorithms for various important reasoning problems in KR by implementing domain-specific reasoning modules with SAT and IP solvers. We detail instantiations of the framework for the minimum satisfiability problem---as a natural dual of MaxSAT---and, as a central KR problem, for propositional abduction, covering the second level of the polynomial hierarchy. We show empirically that an implementation of the instantiation for propositional abduction surpasses the efficiency of an approach based on encoding and solving propositional abduction instances as disjunctive logic programming under answer set semantics.We also study key properties of the general framework.

The formalisms for knowledge representation and reasoning(KR&R) typically have a variety of semantics, each one having its particular application scenarios. However, the KR&Rcommunity cannot readily benefit from such a variety due toa lack of efficient solver technology. This is partly caused bythe fact that solver development is laborious and even accomplishing a working prototype can form a major effort.In this paper, we introduce a new framework that enables us todeclaratively specify a given semantics in second-order logicand to automatically generate a solver from that specification. Hence, KR&R researchers can rapidly develop a solverprototype for their new/existing semantics with a minimal effort. Technically, our framework builds on a recent approachfor nesting SAT solvers based on lazy clause generation.We evaluate our framework in the context of Dung’s argumentation frameworks, logic programming, and propositionallogic subject to standard and non-standard semantics. Weshow for each of those formalisms that one can easily specify its semantics using a few second-order sentences and thatone can effectively obtain a solver for that semantics usingour automated solver generation procedure.For instance, in the case of argumentation frameworks, weobtain 16 different solvers, each solving one of four inference tasks for one of four major argumentation semantics andshow that our solvers (slightly) outperform the best solverfrom the last system competition despite not being tuned forargumentation instances.

A central question in knowledge representation is the following: given some knowledge representation formalism, is it possible, and if so how, to simplify parts of a knowledge base without affecting its meaning, even in the light of additional information? The term strong equivalence was coined in the literature, i.e. strongly equivalent knowledge bases can be locally replaced by each other in a bigger theory without changing the semantics of the latter. In contrast to classical (monotone) logics where standard and strong equivalence coincide, it is possible to find ordinary but not strongly equivalent objects for any nonmonotonic formalism available in the literature. This paper addresses these questions in the context of abstract argumentation theory. Much effort has been spent to characterize several argumentation tailored equivalence notions w.r.t. extension-based semantics. In recent times labelling-based semantics have received increasing attention, for example in connection with algorithms computing extensions, proof procedures, dialogue games, dynamics in argumentation as well as belief revision in general. Of course, equivalence notions allowing for replacements are of high interest for the mentioned topics. In this paper we provide kernel-based characterization theorems for semantics based on complete labellings as well as admissible labellings w.r.t. eight different equivalence notions including the aforementioned most prominent one, namely strong equivalence.

The ability to infer intentions, emotions, and other unobservable psychological states from people's behavior is a hallmark of human social cognition, and an essential capability for future Artificial Intelligence systems. The commonsense theories of psychology and sociology necessary for such inferences have been a focus of logic-based knowledge representation research, but have been difficult to employ in robust automated reasoning architectures. In this paper we model behavior interpretation as a process of logical abduction, where the reasoning task is to identify the most probable set of assumptions that logically entail the observable behavior of others, given commonsense theories of psychology and sociology. We evaluate our approach using Triangle-COPA, a benchmark suite of 100 challenge problems based on an early social psychology experiment by Fritz Heider and Marianne Simmel. Commonsense knowledge of actions, social relationships, intentions, and emotions are encoded as defeasible axioms in first-order logic. We identify sets of assumptions that logically entail observed behaviors by backchaining with these axioms to a given depth, and order these sets by their joint probability assuming conditional independence. Our approach solves almost all (91) of the 100 questions in Triangle-COPA, and demonstrates a promising approach to robust behavior interpretation that integrates both logical and probabilistic reasoning.

Classical inconsistency-tolerant query answering relies on selecting maximal components of an ABox/database which are consistent with the ontology. However, some rules in ontologies might be unreliable if they are extracted from ontology learning or written by unskillful knowledge engineers. In this paper we present a framework of handling inconsistent existential rules under stable model semantics, which is defined by a notion called rule repairs to select maximal components of the existential rules. Surprisingly, for R-acyclic existential rules with R-stratified or guarded existential rules with stratified negations, both the data complexity and combined complexity of query answering under the rule repair semantics remain the same as that under the conventional query answering semantics. This leads us to propose several approaches to handle the rule repair semantics by calling answer set programming solvers. An experimental evaluation shows that these approaches have good scalability of query answering under rule repairs on realistic cases.

We consider a new formulation of abduction in which degrees of "plausibility" of explanations, along with the rules of the domain, are learned from concrete examples (settings of attributes). Our version of abduction thus falls in the " learning to reason " framework of Khardon and Roth. Such approaches enable us to capture a natural notion of "plausibility" in a domain while avoiding the extremely difficult problem of specifying an explicit representation of what is "plausible." We specifically consider the question of which syntactic classes of formulas have efficient algorithms for abduction. We find that the class of k -DNF explanations can be found in polynomial time for any fixed k ; but, we also find evidence that even weak versions of our abduction task are intractable for the usual class of conjunctions . This evidence is provided by a connection to the usual, inductive PAC-learning model proposed by Valiant. We also consider an exception-tolerant variant of abduction. We observe that it is possible for polynomial-time algorithms to tolerate a few adversarially chosen exceptions, again for the class of k -DNF explanations. All of the algorithms we study are particularly simple, and indeed are variants of a rule proposed by Mill.

This paper focuses on LTL on finite traces (LTLf) for which satisfiability is known to be PSPACE-complete. However, little is known about the computational properties of fragments of LTLf. In this paper we fill this gap and make the following contributions. First, we identify several LTLf fragments for which the complexity of satisfiability drops to NP-complete or even P, by considering restrictions on the temporal operators and Boolean connectives being allowed. Second, we study a semantic variant of LTLf, which is of interest in the domain of business processes, where models have the property that precisely one propositional variable evaluates true at each time instant. Third, we introduce a reasoner for LTLf and compare its performance with the state of the art.