Golog and ConGolog are languages defined in the situation calculus for cognitive robotics. Given a Golog program \delta, its semantics is defined by a macro Do(\delta,s,s') that expands to a logical sentence that captures the conditions under which performing \delta in s can terminate in s'. A similarmacro is defined for ConGolog programs. In general, the logical sentences that these macros expand to are second-order, and in the case of ConGolog, may involve quantification over programs. In this paper, we show that by making use of the foundational axioms in the situation calculus, in particular, the second-order closure axiom about the space of situations, these macro expressions can actually be defined using first-order sentences.

The situation calculus is a popular formalism for reasoning about actions and change. Since the language is first-order, reasoning in the situation calculus is undecidable in general.  An important question then is how to weaken reasoning in a principled way to guarantee decidability. Existing approaches either drastically limit the representation of the action theory or neglect important aspects such as sensing. In this paper we propose a model of limited belief for the epistemic situation calculus, which allows very expressive knowledge bases and handles both physical and sensing actions. The model builds on an existing approach to limited belief in the static case. We show that the resulting form of limited reasoning is sound with respect to the original epistemic situation calculus and eventually complete for a large class of formulas. Moreover, reasoning is decidable.

We consider the problem of representing and reasoning about computer programs, and proposea translator from a core procedural iterative programming language to first-order logic with quantification over the domain of natural numbers that includes the usual successor function and the ``less than'' linear order, essentially a first-order logic with a discrete linear order. Unlike Hoare's logic, our approach does not rely on loop invariants. Unlike typical temporal logicspecification of a program, our translation does not require a transition system model of the program, and is compositional on the structures of the program. Some non-trivial examples are given to show the effectiveness of our translation for proving properties of programs.

First-order model counting emerged recently as a novel reasoning task, at the core of efficient algorithms for probabilistic logics. We present a Skolemization algorithm for model counting problems that eliminates existential quantifiers from a first-order logic theory without changing its weighted model count. For certain subsets of first-order logic, lifted model counters were shown to run in time polynomial in the number of objects in the domain of discourse, where propositional model counters require exponential time. However, these guarantees apply only to Skolem normal form theories (i.e., no existential quantifiers) as the presence of existential quantifiers reduces lifted model counters to propositional ones. Since textbook Skolemization is not sound for model counting, these restrictions precluded efficient model counting for directed models, such as probabilistic logic programs, which rely on existential quantification. Our Skolemization procedure extends the applicability of first-order model counters to these representations. Moreover, it simplifies the design of lifted model counting algorithms.

Extensional higher-order logic programming has been recently proposed as an interesting extension of classical logic programming. An important characteristic of the new paradigm is that it preserves all the well-known properties oftraditional logic programming. In this paper we enhance extensional higher-order logic programming with constructive negation. We argue that the main ideas underlying constructive negation are quite close to the existing proof procedurefor extensional higher-order logic programming and for this reason the two notions amalgamate quite conveniently. We demonstrate the soundness of the resulting proof procedure and describe an actual implementation of a language that embodies the above ideas. In this way we obtain the first (to our knowledge) higher-order logic programming language supporting constructive negation and offering a new style of programming that genuinely extends that of traditional logic programming.

Logic programs with ordered disjunction (LPODs) (Brewka 2002) generalize normal logic programs by combining alternative and ranked options in the heads of rules. It has been showed that LPODs are useful in a number of areas including game theory, policy languages, planning and argumentations. In this paper, we extend propositional LPODs to the first-order case, where a classical second-order formula is defined to capture the stable model semantics of the underlying first-order LPODs. We then develop a progression semantics that is equivalent to the stable model semantics but naturally represents the reasoning procedure of LPODs. We show that on finite structures, every LPOD can be translated to a first order sentence, which provides a basis for computing stable models of LPODs. We further study the complexity and expressiveness of LPODs and prove that almost positive LPODs precisely capture first-order normal logic programs, which indicates that ordered disjunction itself and constraints are sufficient to represent negation as failure.

This paper proposes a model, the linear model, for randomly generating logic programs with low density of rules and investigates statistical properties of such random logic programs. It is mathematically shown that the average number of answer sets for a random program converges to a constant when the number of atoms approaches infinity. Several experimental results are also reported, which justify the suitability of the linear model. It is also experimentally shown that, under this model, the size distribution of answer sets for random programs tends to a normal distribution when the number of atoms is sufficiently large. KEYWORDS: answer set programming, random logic programs.

The semantics of determiner phrases, be they definite de- scriptions, indefinite descriptions or quantified noun phrases, is often as- sumed to be a fully solved question: common nouns are properties, and determiners are generalised quantifiers that apply to two predicates: the property corresponding to the common noun and the one corresponding to the verb phrase. We first present a criticism of this standard view. Firstly, the semantics of determiners does not follow the syntactical structure of the sentence. Secondly the standard interpretation of the indefinite article cannot ac- count for nominal sentences. Thirdly, the standard view misses the linguis- tic asymmetry between the two properties of a generalised quantifier. In the sequel, we propose a treatment of determiners and quantifiers as Hilbert terms in a richly typed system that we initially developed for lexical semantics, using a many sorted logic for semantical representations. We present this semantical framework called the Montagovian generative lexicon and show how these terms better match the syntactical structure and avoid the aforementioned problems of the standard approach. Hilbert terms rather differ from choice functions in that there is one polymorphic operator and not one operator per formula. They also open an intriguing connection between the logic for meaning assembly, the typed lambda calculus handling compositionality and the many-sorted logic for semantical representations. Furthermore epsilon terms naturally introduce type-judgements and confirm the claim that type judgment are a form of presupposition.

The action language BC provides an elegant way of formalizing dynamic domains which involve indirect effects of actions and recursively defined fluents. In complex robot task planning domains, it may be necessary for robots to plan with incomplete information, and reason about indirect or recursive action effects. In this paper, we demonstrate how BC can be used for robot task planning to solve these issues. Additionally, action costs are incorporated with planning to produce optimal plans, and we estimate these costs from experience making planning adaptive. This paper presents the first application of BC on a real robot in a realistic domain, which involves human-robot interaction for knowledge acquisition, optimal plan generation to minimize navigation time, and learning for adaptive planning.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a well-established paradigm of declarative programming that has been developed in the field of logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning. Advances in ASP solving technology are customarily assessed in competition events, as it happens for other closely-related problem-solving technologies like SAT/SMT, QBF, Planning and Scheduling. ASP Competitions are (usually) biennial events; however, the Fifth ASP Competition departs from tradition, in order to join the FLoC Olympic Games at the Vienna Summer of Logic 2014, which is expected to be the largest event in the history of logic. This edition of the ASP Competition series is jointly organized by the University of Calabria (Italy), the Aalto University (Finland), and the University of Genova (Italy), and is affiliated with the 30th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2014). It features a completely re-designed setup, with novelties involving the design of tracks, the scoring schema, and the adherence to a fixed modeling language in order to push the adoption of the ASP-Core-2 standard. Benchmark domains are taken from past editions, and best system packages submitted in 2013 are compared with new versions and solvers. To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).