Abduction is a fundamental and important form of non-monotonic reasoning. Given a knowledge base explaining how the world behaves it aims at finding an explanation for some observed manifestation. In this paper we focus on propositional abduction, where the knowledge base and the manifestation are represented by propositional formulae. The problem of deciding whether there exists an explanation has been shown to be SigmaP2-complete in general. We consider variants obtained by restricting the allowed connectives in the formulae to certain sets of Boolean functions. We give a complete classification of the complexity for all considerable sets of Boolean functions. In this way, we identify easier cases, namely NP-complete and polynomial cases; and we highlight sources of intractability. Further, we address the problem of counting the explanations and draw a complete picture for the counting complexity.

Music composition used to be a pen and paper activity. These these days music is often composed with the aid of computer software, even to the point where the computer compose parts of the score autonomously. The composition of most styles of music is governed by rules. We show that by approaching the automation, analysis and verification of composition as a knowledge representation task and formalising these rules in a suitable logical language, powerful and expressive intelligent composition tools can be easily built. This application paper describes the use of answer set programming to construct an automated system, named ANTON, that can compose melodic, harmonic and rhythmic music, diagnose errors in human compositions and serve as a computer-aided composition tool. The combination of harmonic, rhythmic and melodic composition in a single framework makes ANTON unique in the growing area of algorithmic composition. With near real-time composition, ANTON reaches the point where it can not only be used as a component in an interactive composition tool but also has the potential for live performances and concerts or automatically generated background music in a variety of applications. With the use of a fully declarative language and an "off-the-shelf" reasoning engine, ANTON provides the human composer a tool which is significantly simpler, more compact and more versatile than other existing systems. This paper has been accepted for publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).

In this paper we propose an extension of Answer Set Programming (ASP), and in particular, of its most general logical counterpart, Quantified Equilibrium Logic (QEL), to deal with partial functions. Although the treatment of equality in QEL can be established in different ways, we first analyse the choice of decidable equality with complete functions and Herbrand models, recently proposed in the literature. We argue that this choice yields some counterintuitive effects from a logic programming and knowledge representation point of view. We then propose a variant called QELF where the set of functions is partitioned into partial and Herbrand functions (we also call constructors). In the rest of the paper, we show a direct connection to Scott's Logic of Existence and present a practical application, proposing an extension of normal logic programs to deal with partial functions and equality, so that they can be translated into function-free normal programs, being possible in this way to compute their answer sets with any standard ASP solver.

Different notions of equivalence, such as the prominent notions of strong and uniform equivalence, have been studied in Answer-Set Programming, mainly for the purpose of identifying programs that can serve as substitutes without altering the semantics, for instance in program optimization. Such semantic comparisons are usually characterized by various selections of models in the logic of Here-and-There (HT). For uniform equivalence however, correct characterizations in terms of HT-models can only be obtained for finite theories, respectively programs. In this article, we show that a selection of countermodels in HT captures uniform equivalence also for infinite theories. This result is turned into coherent characterizations of the different notions of equivalence by countermodels, as well as by a mixture of HT-models and countermodels (so-called equivalence interpretations). Moreover, we generalize the so-called notion of relativized hyperequivalence for programs to propositional theories, and apply the same methodology in order to obtain a semantic characterization which is amenable to infinite settings. This allows for a lifting of the results to first-order theories under a very general semantics given in terms of a quantified version of HT. We thus obtain a general framework for the study of various notions of equivalence for theories under answer-set semantics. Moreover, we prove an expedient property that allows for a simplified treatment of extended signatures, and provide further results for non-ground logic programs. In particular, uniform equivalence coincides under open and ordinary answer-set semantics, and for finite non-ground programs under these semantics, also the usual characterization of uniform equivalence in terms of maximal and total HT-models of the grounding is correct, even for infinite domains, when corresponding ground programs are infinite.

Weighted logic programming, a generalization of bottom-up logic programming, is a well-suited framework for specifying dynamic programming algorithms. In this setting, proofs correspond to the algorithm's output space, such as a path through a graph or a grammatical derivation, and are given a real-valued score (often interpreted as a probability) that depends on the real weights of the base axioms used in the proof. The desired output is a function over all possible proofs, such as a sum of scores or an optimal score. We describe the PRODUCT transformation, which can merge two weighted logic programs into a new one. The resulting program optimizes a product of proof scores from the original programs, constituting a scoring function known in machine learning as a ``product of experts.'' Through the addition of intuitive constraining side conditions, we show that several important dynamic programming algorithms can be derived by applying PRODUCT to weighted logic programs corresponding to simpler weighted logic programs. In addition, we show how the computation of Kullback-Leibler divergence, an information-theoretic measure, can be interpreted using PRODUCT.

In the context of the Semantic Web, several approaches to the combination of ontologies, given in terms of theories of classical first-order logic and rule bases, have been proposed. They either cast rules into classical logic or limit the interaction between rules and ontologies. Autoepistemic logic (AEL) is an attractive formalism which allows to overcome these limitations, by serving as a uniform host language to embed ontologies and nonmonotonic logic programs into it. For the latter, so far only the propositional setting has been considered. In this paper, we present three embeddings of normal and three embeddings of disjunctive non-ground logic programs under the stable model semantics into first-order AEL. While the embeddings all correspond with respect to objective ground atoms, differences arise when considering non-atomic formulas and combinations with first-order theories. We compare the embeddings with respect to stable expansions and autoepistemic consequences, considering the embeddings by themselves, as well as combinations with classical theories. Our results reveal differences and correspondences of the embeddings and provide useful guidance in the choice of a particular embedding for knowledge combination.

Interval temporal logics (ITLs) are logics for reasoning about temporal statements expressed over intervals, i.e., periods of time. The most famous ITL studied so far is Halpern and Shoham's HS, which is the logic of the thirteen Allen's interval relations. Unfortunately, HS and most of its fragments have an undecidable satisfiability problem. This discouraged the research in this area until recently, when a number non-trivial decidable ITLs have been discovered. This paper is a contribution towards the complete classification of all different fragments of HS. We consider different combinations of the interval relations Begins, After, Later and their inverses Abar, Bbar, and Lbar. We know from previous works that the combination ABBbarAbar is decidable only when finite domains are considered (and undecidable elsewhere), and that ABBbar is decidable over the natural numbers. We extend these results by showing that decidability of ABBar can be further extended to capture the language ABBbarLbar, which lays in between ABBar and ABBbarAbar, and that turns out to be maximal w.r.t decidability over strongly discrete linear orders (e.g. finite orders, the naturals, the integers). We also prove that the proposed decision procedure is optimal with respect to the complexity class.

Grounding is the task of reducing a first-order theory and finite domain to an equivalent propositional theory. It is used as preprocessing phase in many logic-based reasoning systems. Such systems provide a rich first-order input language to a user and can rely on efficient propositional solvers to perform the actual reasoning. Besides a first-order theory and finite domain, the input for grounders contains in many applications also additional data. By exploiting this data, the size of the grounder's output can often be reduced significantly. A common practice to improve the efficiency of a grounder in this context is by manually adding semantically redundant information to the input theory, indicating where and when the grounder should exploit the data. In this paper we present a method to compute and add such redundant information automatically. Our method therefore simplifies the task of writing input theories that can be grounded efficiently by current systems. We first present our method for classical first-order logic (FO) theories. Then we extend it to FO(ID), the extension of FO with inductive definitions, which allows for more concise and comprehensive input theories. We discuss implementation issues and experimentally validate the practical applicability of our method.

A research project aimed at the development of an automated theorem proving system was started in Kiev (Ukraine) in early 1960s. The mastermind of the project, Academician V.Glushkov, baptized it "Evidence Algorithm", EA. The work on the project lasted, off and on, more than 40 years. In the framework of the project, the Russian and English versions of the System for Automated Deduction, SAD, were constructed. They may be already seen as powerful theorem-proving assistants.

Modern solvers for Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) and Answer Set Programming (ASP) are based on sophisticated Boolean constraint solving techniques. In both areas, conflict-driven learning and related techniques constitute key features whose application is enabled by conflict analysis. Although various conflict analysis schemes have been proposed, implemented, and studied both theoretically and practically in the SAT area, the heuristic aspects involved in conflict analysis have not yet received much attention. Assuming a fixed conflict analysis scheme, we address the open question of how to identify "good'' reasons for conflicts, and we investigate several heuristics for conflict analysis in ASP solving. To our knowledge, a systematic study like ours has not yet been performed in the SAT area, thus, it might be beneficial for both the field of ASP as well as the one of SAT solving.