Preference handling and optimization are indispensable means for addressing non-trivial applications in Answer Set Programming (ASP). However, their implementation becomes difficult whenever they bring about a significant increase in computational complexity. As a consequence, existing ASP systems do not offer complex optimization capacities, supporting, for instance, inclusion-based minimization or Pareto efficiency. Rather, such complex criteria are typically addressed by resorting to dedicated modeling techniques, like saturation. Unlike the ease of common ASP modeling, however, these techniques are rather involved and hardly usable by ASP laymen. We address this problem by developing a general implementation technique by means of meta-programming, thus reusing existing ASP systems to capture various forms of qualitative preferences among answer sets. In this way, complex preferences and optimization capacities become readily available for ASP applications.

Uncertainty is unavoidable when modeling most application domains. In medicine, for example, symptoms (such as pain, dizziness, or nausea) are always subjective, and hence imprecise and incomparable. Additionally, concepts and their relationships may be inexpressible in a crisp, clear-cut manner. We extend the description logic ALC with multi-valued semantics based on lattices that can handle uncertainty on concepts as well as on the axioms of the ontology. We introduce reasoning methods for this logic w.r.t. general concept inclusions and show that the complexity of reasoning is not increased by this new semantics.

Possibilistic logic is a well-known framework for dealing with uncertainty and reasoning under inconsistent knowledge bases. Standard possibilistic logic expressions are propositional logic formulas associated with positive real degrees belonging to [0,1]. However, in practice it may be difficult for an expert to provide exact degrees associated with formulas of a knowledge base. This paper proposes a flexible representation of uncertain information where the weights associated with formulas are in the form of intervals. We first study a framework for reasoning with interval-based possibilistic knowledge bases by extending main concepts of possibilistic logic such as the ones of necessity and possibility measures. We then provide a characterization of an interval-based possibilistic logic base by means of a concept of compatible standard possibilistic logic bases. We show that interval-based possibilistic logic extends possibilistic logic in the case where all intervals are singletons. Lastly, we provide computational complexity results of deriving plausible conclusions from interval-based possibilistic bases and we show that the flexibility in representing uncertain information is handled without extra computational costs.

The paper introduces a logical framework for negotiation among dishonest agents. The framework relies on the use of abductive logic programming as a knowledge representation language for agents to deal with incomplete information and preferences. The paper shows how intentionally false or inaccurate information of agents could be encoded in the agents' knowledge bases. Such disinformation can be effectively used in the process of negotiation to have desired outcomes by agents. The negotiation processes are formulated under the answer set semantics of abductive logic programming and enable the exploration of various strategies that agents can employ in their negotiation

We study uniform interpolation and forgetting in the description logic ALC. Our main results are model-theoretic characterizations of uniform interpolants and their existence in terms of bisimulations, tight complexity bounds for deciding the existence of uniform interpolants, an approach to computing interpolants when they exist, and tight bounds on their size. We use a mix of model-theoretic and automata-theoretic methods that, as a by-product, also provides charachterizations of, and decision procedures for, conservative extensions.

The minimization problem for propositional formulas is an important optimization problem in the second level of the polynomial hierarchy. In general, the problem is Sigma-2-complete under Turing reductions, but restricted versions are tractable. We study the complexity of minimization for formulas in two established frameworks for restricted propositional logic: The Post framework allowing arbitrarily nested formulas over a set of Boolean connectors, and the constraint setting, allowing generalizations of CNF formulas. In the Post case, we obtain a dichotomy result: Minimization is solvable in polynomial time or coNP-hard. This result also applies to Boolean circuits. For CNF formulas, we obtain new minimization algorithms for a large class of formulas, and give strong evidence that we have covered all polynomial-time cases.

Proving that one language is more succinct than another becomes harder when the underlying semantics is stronger. We propose to use Formula-Size Games (as put forward by Adler and Immerman, 2003), games that are played on two sets of models, and that directly link the length of play with the size of the formula. Using those games, we prove three succinctness results for m-dimensional modal logic: (1) In system K m , a notion of `everybody knows' makes the resulting language exponentially more succinct for m > 1, (2) In S5, the same language becomes more succinct for m > 3 and (3) Public Announcement Logic is exponentially more succinct than S5m, if m > 3. The latter settles an open problem raised by Lutz, 2006.

Many AI applications are based on some underlying logic that tolerates inconsistent information in a non-trivial way. However, it is not always clear what should be the exact nature of such a logic, and how to choose one for a specific application. In this paper, we formulate a list of desirable properties of `ideal' logics for reasoning with inconsistency, identify a variety of logics that have these properties, and provide a systematic way of constructing, for every n>2, a family of such n-valued logics.

LogAnswer is a question answering (QA) system for the German language, aimed at providing concise and correct answers to arbitrary questions. For this purpose LogAnswer is designed as an embedded artificial intelligence system which integrates methods from several fields of AI, namely natural language processing, machine learning, knowledge representation and automated theorem proving. We intend to employ LogAnswer as a virtual user within Internet-based QA forums, where it must be able to identify the questions that it cannot answer correctly, a task that normally receives little attention in QA research compared to the actual answer derivation. The paper presents a machine learning solution to the wrong answer avoidance (WAA) problem, applying a meta classifier to the output of simple term-based classifiers and a rich set of other WAA features. Experiments with a large set of real-world questions from a QA forum show that the proposed method significantly improves the WAA characteristics of our system.

The robot programming and plan language IndiGolog allows for on-line execution of actions and offline projections of programs in dynamic and partly unknown environments. Basic assumptions are that the outcomes of primitive and sensing actions are correctly modeled, and that the agent is informed about all exogenous events beyond its control. In real-world applications, however, such assumptions do not hold. In fact, an action’s outcome is error-prone and sensing results are noisy. In this paper, we present a belief management system in IndiGolog that is able to detect inconsistencies between a robot’s modeled belief and what happened in reality. The system furthermore derives explanations and maintains a consistent belief. Our main contributions are (1) a belief management system following a history-based diagnosis approach that allows an agent to actively cope with faulty actions and the occurrence of exogenous events; and (2) an implementation in IndiGolog and experimental results from a delivery domain.