We present a framework for reasoning about actions that not only solves the frame and ramification problems, but also the state default problem—the problem to determine what normally holds at a given time point. Yet, the framework is general enough not to be tied to a specific time structure. This is achieved as follows: We use effect axioms that draw ideas both from Reiter's successor state axioms and the non-monotonic causal theories by Giunchiglia et al. These axioms are formulated in a recently proposed unifying action calculus to guarantee independence of a specific underlying notion of time. Reiter's default logic is then wrapped around the resulting calculus and plays a key role in solving the ramification as well as the state default problem.

Cardinality constraints or, more generally, weight constraints are well recognized as an important extension of answer-set programming. Clearly, all common algorithmic tasks related to programs with cardinality or weight constraints (PWCs) - like checking the consistency of a program - are intractable. Many intractable problems in the area of knowledge representation and reasoning have been shown to become tractable if the treewidth of the programs or formulas under consideration is bounded by some constant. The goal of this paper is to apply the notion of treewidth to PWCs and to identify tractable fragments. It will turn out that the straightforward application of treewidth to PWCs does not suffice to obtain tractability. However, by imposing further restrictions, tractability can be achieved.

We provide two approaches for explaining inconsistency in multi-context systems, where decentralized and heterogeneous system parts interact via nonmonotonic bridge rules. Inconsistencies arise easily in such scenarios, and nonmonotonicity calls for specific methods of inconsistency analysis. Both our approaches characterize inconsistency in terms of involved bridge rules: either by pointing out rules which need to be altered for restoring consistency, or by finding combinations of rules which cause inconsistency. We show duality and modularity properties, give precise complexity characterizations, and provide algorithms for computation using HEX-programs. Our results form a basis for inconsistency management in heterogeneous knowledge integration systems.

In the field of psychology, a considerable amount of knowledge is expressed using only natural language, which complicates accurate studies and comparisons. We believe that Answer Set Programming (ASP) can be used successfully for the formalization of psychological knowledge. To demonstrate the viability of ASP for this task, in this paper we develop an ASP-based formalization of the mechanics of Short-Term Memory, and show how it correctly reproduces the observed behavior of human subjects.

Levesque introduced the notion of only-knowing to precisely capture the beliefs of a knowledge base. He also showed how only-knowing can be used to formalize non-monotonic behavior within a monotonic logic. Despite its appeal, all attempts to extend only-knowing to the many agent case have undesirable properties. A belief model by Halpern and Lakemeyer, for instance, appeals to proof-theoretic constructs in the semantics and needs to axiomatize validity as part of the logic. It is also not clear how to generalize their ideas to a first-order case. In this paper, we propose a new account of multi-agent only-knowing which, for the first time, has a natural possible-world semantics for a quantified language with equality. We then provide, for the propositional fragment, a sound and complete axiomatization that faithfully lifts Levesque's proof theory to the many agent case. We also discuss comparisons to the earlier approach by Halpern and Lakemeyer. 

We address the problem of repairing large-scale biological networks and corresponding yet often discrepant measurements in order to predict unobserved variations. To this end, we propose a range of different operations for altering experimental data and/or a biological network in order to re-establish their mutual consistency-an indispensable prerequisite for automated prediction. For accomplishing repair and prediction, we take advantage of the distinguished modeling and reasoning capacities of Answer Set Programming. We validate our framework by an empirical study on the widely investigated organism Escherichia coli.

We often deal with dynamic worlds where actions are executed by agents and events may happen. Example of such worlds range from virtual worlds such as the world of a database to robots and humans in physical worlds. To understand the dynamics of such worlds as well as to be able to assert some control over such worlds one needs to reason about the actions and events and how they may change the world. In this invited talk we will present some of the important results in this field and present some future directions. In particular, we will discuss how theories and results from reasoning about actions and change can be combined with theories and results in dynamic epistemic logics to obtain a unified theory of multi-agent actions.

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 Σ p 2 -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.

Abstract argumentation frameworks have received a lot of interest in recent years. Most computational problems in this area are intractable but several tractable fragments have been identified. In particular, Dunne showed that many problems can be solved in linear time for argumentation frameworks of bounded tree-width. However, these tractability results, which were obtained via Courcelle’s Theorem, do not directly lead to efficient algorithms. The goal of this paper is to turn the theoretical tractability results into efficient algorithms and to explore the potential of directed notions of tree-width for defining larger tractable fragments.

We present a distributed algorithm for computing equilibria of heterogeneous nonmonotonic multi-context systems (MCS). The algorithm can be parametrized to compute only partial equilibria, which can be used for reasoning tasks like query answering or satisfiability checking that need only partial information and not whole belief states. Furthermore, caching is employed to cut redundant solver calls. As a showcase, we instantiate the MCS framework with answer set program contexts. To characterize equilibria of such MCS, we develop notions of loop formulas that enable reductions to the classical satisfiability problem (SAT). Notably, loop formulas for bridge rules between contexts and for the local contexts can be combined to a uniform encoding of an MCS into a (distributed) SAT instance. As a consequence, we can use SAT solvers for belief set building. We demonstrate this approach by an experimental prototype implementation, which uses an off-the-shelf SAT solver.