We add epistemic modal operators to the language of here-and-there logic and define epistemic here-and-there models. We then successively define epistemic equilibrium models and autoepistemic equilibrium models. The former are obtained from here-and-there models by the standard minimisation of truth of Pearce’s equilibrium logic; they provide an epistemic extension of that logic. The latter are obtained from the former by maximising the set of epistemic possibilities; they provide a new semantics for Gelfond’s epistemic specifications.

In a seminal paper, Lin and Reiter introduced the notion of progression for basic action theories in the situation calculus. Recently, Fang and Liu extended the situation calculus to account for multi-agent knowledge and belief change. In this paper, based on their framework, we investigate progression of both belief and knowledge in the single-agent propositional case. We first present a model-theoretic definition of progression of knowledge and belief. We show that for propositional actions, i.e., actions whose precondition axioms and successor state axioms are propositional formulas, progression of knowledge and belief reduces to forgetting in the logic of knowledge and belief, which we show is closed under forgetting. Consequently, we are able to show that for propositional actions, progression of knowledge and belief is always definable in the logic of knowledge and belief.

Justification logic originated from the study of the logic of proofs.  However, in a more general setting, it may be regarded as a kind of explicit epistemic logic. In such logic, the reasons why a fact is believed are explicitly represented as justification terms.  Traditionally, the modeling of uncertain beliefs is crucially important for epistemic reasoning. While graded modal logics interpreted with possibility theory semantics have been successfully applied to the representation and reasoning of uncertain beliefs, they cannot keep track of the reasons why an agent believes a fact. The objective of this paper is to extend the graded modal logics with explicit justifications. We introduce a possibilistic justification logic,  present its syntax and semantics, and investigate its meta-properties, such as soundness, completeness, and realizability.

We propose a versatile framework for combining knowledge bases in modular systems with preferences. In our formalism, each module (knowledge base) can be specified in a different language. We define the notion of a preference-based modular system that includes a formalization of meta-preferences. We prove that our formalism is robust in the sense that the operations for combining modules preserve the notion of  a preference-based modular system. Finally, we formally demonstrate correspondences between our framework and the related preference formalisms of cp-nets and preference-based planning. Our framework allows one to use  these preference formalisms (and others) in combination, in the same modular system.

The square of opposition is a structure involving two involutive negations and relating quantified statements, invented in Aristotle time. Rediscovered in the second half of the XXth century, and advocated as being of interest for understanding conceptual structures and solving problems in paraconsistent logics, the square of opposition has been recently completed into a cube, which corresponds to the introduction of a third negation. Such a cube can be encountered in very different knowledge representation formalisms, such as modal logic, possibility theory in its all-or-nothing version, formal concept analysis, rough set theory and abstract argumentation. After restating these results in a unified perspective, the paper proposes a graded extension of the cube and shows that several qualitative, as well as quantitative formalisms, such as Sugeno integrals used in multiple criteria aggregation and qualitative decision theory, or yet belief functions and Choquet integrals, are amenable to transformations that form graded cubes of opposition. This discovery leads to a new perspective on many knowledge representation formalisms, laying bare their underlying common features. The cube of opposition exhibits fruitful parallelisms between different formalisms, which leads to highlight some missing components present in one formalism and currently absent from another.

Knowledge and Action Bases (KABs) have been put forward as a semantically rich representation of a domain, using a DL KB to account for its static aspects, and actions to evolve its extensional part over time, possibly introducing new objects. Recently, KABs have been extended to manage inconsistency, with ad-hoc verification techniques geared towards specific semantics. This work provides a twofold contribution along this line of research. On the one hand, we enrich KABs with a high-level, compact action language inspired by Golog, obtaining so called Golog-KABs (GKABs). On the other hand, we introduce a parametric execution semantics for GKABs, so as to elegantly accomodate a plethora of inconsistency-aware semantics based on the notion of repair. We then provide several reductions for the verification of sophisticated first-order temporal properties over inconsistency-aware GKABs, and show that it can be addressed using known techniques, developed for standard KABs.

In this paper we investigate situation calculus action theories extended with ontologies, expressed as description logics TBoxes that act as state constraints. We show that this combination, while natural and desirable, is particularly problematic: it leads to undecidability of the simplest form of reasoning, namely satisfiability, even for the simplest kinds of description logics and the simplest kind of situation calculus action theories.

Recent years have witnessed a great deal of interest in extending answer set programming with function symbols. Since the evaluation of a program with function symbols might not terminate and checking termination is undecidable, several classes of logic programs have been proposed where the use of function symbols is limited but the program evaluation is guaranteed to terminate. In this paper, we propose a novel class of logic programs whose evaluation always terminates. The proposed technique identifies terminating programs that are not captured by any of the current approaches. Our technique is based on the idea of measuring the size of terms and atoms to check whether the rule head size is bounded by the body, and performs a more fine-grained analysis than previous work. Rather than adopting an all-or-nothing approach (either we can say that the program is terminating or we cannot say anything),  our technique can identify arguments that are "limited'' (i.e., where there is no infinite propagation of terms) even when the program is not entirely recognized as terminating. Identifying arguments that are limited can support the user in the problem formulation and help other techniques that use limited arguments as a starting point. Another useful feature of our approach is that it is able to leverage external information about limited arguments. We also provide results on the correctness, the complexity, and the expressivity of our technique.

Expressive query languages are gaining relevance in knowledge representation (KR), and new reasoning problems come to the fore. Especially query containment is interesting in this context. The problem is known to be decidable for many expressive query languages, but exact complexities are often missing. We introduce a new query language, guarded queries (GQ), which generalizes most known languages where query containment is decidable. GQs can be nested (more expressive), or restricted to linear recursion (less expressive). Our comprehensive analysis of the computational properties and expressiveness of (linear/nested) GQs also yields insights on many previous languages.

Context-aware systems use data collected at runtime to recognize certain predefined situations and trigger adaptations. This can be implemented using ontology-based data access (OBDA), which augments classical query answering in databases by adopting the open-world assumption and including domain knowledge provided by an ontology. We investigate temporalized OBDA w.r.t. ontologies formulated in EL, a description logic that allows for efficient reasoning and is successfully used in practice. We consider a recently proposed temporalized query language that combines conjunctive queries with the operators of propositional linear temporal logic (LTL), and study both data and combined complexity of query entailment in this setting. We also analyze the satisfiability problem in the similar formalism EL-LTL.