The recent years have seen several proposals aimed at placing the revision of logic programs within the belief change frameworks established for classical logic. A crucial challenge of this task lies in the nonmonotonicity of standard logic programming semantics. Existing approaches have thus used the monotonic characterisation via SE-models to develop semantic revision operators, which however neglect any syntactic information, or reverted to a syntax-oriented belief base approach altogether. In this paper, we bridge the gap between semantic and syntactic techniques by adapting the idea of a partial meet construction from classical belief change. This type of construction allows us to define new model-based operators for revising as well as contracting logic programs that preserve the syntactic structure of the programs involved. We demonstrate the rationality of our operators by testing them against the classic AGM or alternative belief change postulates adapted to the logic programming setting. We further present an algorithm that reduces the partial meet revision or contraction of a logic program to performing revision or contraction only on the relevant subsets of that program.

We present a probabilistic extension of logic programs under the stable model semantics, inspired by the concept of Markov Logic Networks. The proposed language takes advantage of both formalisms in a single framework, allowing us to represent commonsense reasoning problems that require both logical and probabilistic reasoning in an intuitive and elaboration tolerant way.

Since Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) was introduced in the nineties,the structure and semantics of an ABA framework have been studied exclusively in logical termswithout any graphical representation.Here, we show how an ABA framework and its complete semantics can be displayed in a graph,clarifying the structure of the ABA framework as well as the resulting complete assumption labellings.Furthermore, we show that such an ABA graph can be used to represent the structureand semantics of a logic program (LP), based on the correspondence between the semantics of a LP and an ABA framework encoding this LP.

This paper is concerned with knowledge compilation (KC), a family of approaches developed in AI for more than twenty years. Knowledge compilation consists in pre-processing some pieces of the available information in order to improve the computational efficiency (especially, the time complexity) of some tasks. In this paper, the focus is laid on three KC topics which gave rise to many works: the development of knowledge compilation techniques for the clausal entailment problem in propositional logic, the concept of compilability and the notion of knowledge compilation map. The three topics, as well as an overview of the main results from the literature, are presented. Some recent research lines are also discussed.

Our paper is actually two contributions in one. First, we argue that IBM's Jeopardy! playing machine needs a formal semantics. We present several arguments as we discuss the system. We also situate the work in the broader context of contemporary AI. Our second point is that the work in this area might well be done as a broad collaborative project. Hence our "Blue Sky'' contribution is a proposal to organize a polymath-style effort aimed at developing formal tools for the study of state of the art question-answer systems, and other large scale NLP efforts whose architectures and algorithms lack a theoretical foundation.

An original method for the extraction of one maximal subset of a set of Boolean clauses that must be satisfiable with possibly mutually contradictory assumptive contexts is motivated and experimented. Noticeably, it performs a direct computation and avoids the enumeration of all subsets that are satisfiable with at least one of the contexts. The method applies for subsets that are maximal with respect to inclusion or cardinality.

Many computer science problems can be naturally and compactly expressed using quantified Boolean formulas (QBFs). Evaluating thetruth or falsity of a QBF is an important task, and constructing the corresponding model or countermodel can be as important and sometimes even more useful in practice. Modern search and learning based QBF solvers rely fundamentally on resolution and can be instrumented to produce resolution proofs, from which in turn Skolem-function models and Herbrand-function countermodels can be extracted. These (counter)models are the key enabler of various applications. Not until recently the superiority of long-distanceresolution (LQ-resolution) to short-distance resolution(Q-resolution) was demonstrated. While a polynomial algorithm exists for (counter)model extraction from Q-resolution proofs, it remains open whether it exists forLQ-resolution proofs. This paper settles this open problem affirmatively by constructing a linear-time extraction procedure. Experimental results show the distinct benefits of the proposed method in extracting high quality certificates from some LQ-resolution proofs that are not obtainable from Q-resolution proofs.

Model counting is the problem of computing the number of models that satisfy a given propositional theory. It has recently been applied to solving inference tasks in probabilistic logic programming, where the goal is to compute the probability of given queries being true provided a set of mutually independent random variables, a model (a logic program) and some evidence. The core of solving this inference task involves translating the logic program to a propositional theory and using a model counter. In this paper, we show that for some problems that involve inductive definitions like reachability in a graph, the translation of logic programs to SAT can be expensive for the purpose of solving inference tasks. For such problems, direct implementation of stable model semantics allows for more efficient solving. We present two implementation techniques, based on unfounded set detection, that extend a propositional model counter to a stable model counter. Our experiments show that for particular problems, our approach can outperform a state-of-the-art probabilistic logic programming solver by several orders of magnitude in terms of running time and space requirements, and can solve instances of significantly larger sizes on which the current solver runs out of time or memory.

This paper introduces a modal logic for reasoning about game strategies. The logic is based on a variant of the well-known game description language for describing game rules and further extends it with two modalities for reasoning about actions and strategies. We develop an axiomatic system and prove its soundness and completeness with respect to a specific semantics based on the state transition model of games. Interestingly, the completeness proof makes use of forgetting techniques that have been widely used in the KR&R literature. We demonstrate how general game-playing systems can apply the logic to develop game strategies.

The theory of (variable) forgetting has received significant attention in nonmonotonic reasoning, especially, in answer set programming. However, the problem of establishing a theory of forgetting for some expressive nonmonotonic logics such as McCarthy's circumscription is rarely explored.In this paper a theory of forgetting for propositional circumscription is proposed, which is not a straightforward adaption of existing approaches. In particular, some properties that are essential for existing proposals do not hold any longer or have to be reformulated. Several useful properties of the new forgetting are proved, which demonstrate suitability of the forgetting for circumscription. A sound and complete algorithm for the forgetting is developed and an analysis of computational complexity is given.