In the last two decades, modal and description logics have been applied to numerous areas of computer science, including knowledge representation, formal verification, database theory, distributed computing and, more recently, semantic web and ontologies. For this reason, the problem of automated reasoning in modal and description logics has been thoroughly investigated. In particular, many approaches have been proposed for efficiently handling the satisfiability of the core normal modal logic K(m), and of its notational variant, the description logic ALC. Although simple in structure, K(m)/ALC is computationally very hard to reason on, its satisfiability being PSPACE-complete. In this paper we start exploring the idea of performing automated reasoning tasks in modal and description logics by encoding them into SAT, so that to be handled by state-of-the-art SAT tools; as with most previous approaches, we begin our investigation from the satisfiability in K(m). We propose an efficient encoding, and we test it on an extensive set of benchmarks, comparing the approach with the main state-of-the-art tools available. Although the encoding is necessarily worst-case exponential, from our experiments we notice that, in practice, this approach can handle most or all the problems which are at the reach of the other approaches, with performances which are comparable with, or even better than, those of the current state-of-the-art tools.

We look at composition of (possibly nonterminating) high-level programs over situation calculus action theories. Specifically the problem we look at is as follows: given a library of available ConGolog programs and a target program not in the library, verify whether the target program executions be realized by composing fragments of the executions of the available programs; and, if so, synthesize a controller that does the composition automatically. This kind of composition problems have been investigated in the CS and AI literature, but always assuming finite states settings. Here, instead, we investigate the issue in the context of infinite domains that may go through an infinite number of states as a result of actions.  Obviously in this context the problem is undecidable. Nonetheless, by exploiting recent results in the AI literature, we devise a sound and well characterized technique to actually solve the problem.

The aim of this work is to propose a logical framework for the specification of cognitive emotions that are based on counterfactual reasoning about agents’ choices. An example of this kind of emotions is regret. In order to meet this objective, we exploit the well-known STIT logic [Belnap et al., 2001; Horty, 2001]. STIT logic has been proposed in the domain of formal philosophy in the nineties and, more recently, it has been imported into the field of theoretical computer science where its formal relationships with other logics for multiagent systems such as ATL and Coalition Logic (CL) have been studied. STIT is a very suitable formalism to reason about choices and capabilities of agents and groups of agents. Unfortunately, the version of STIT with agents and groups has been recently proved to be undecidable. In this work we study a decidable fragment of STIT with agents and groups which is sufficiently expressive for our purpose of formalizing counterfactual emotions.

A general game player is a system that understands the rules of an unknown game and learns to play this game well without human intervention. To succeed in this endeavor, systems need to be able to extract and prove game-specific knowledge from the mere game rules. We present a practical approach to this challenge with the help of Answer Set Programming. The key idea is to reduce the automated theorem proving task to a simple proof of an induction step and its base case. We prove correctness of this method and report on experiments with an off-the-shelf Answer Set Programming system in combination with a successful general game player.

Recent work on Alternating-Time Temporal Logic and Coalition Logic has allowed the expression of many interesting properties of coalitions and strategies. However there is no natural way of expressing resource requirements in these logics. This paper presents a Resource-Bounded Coalition Logic (RBCL) which has explicit representation of resource bounds in the language, and gives a complete and sound axiomatisation of RBCL.

In this paper, we address the problem of merging multiple imprecise probabilistic beliefs represented as Probabilistic Logic Programs (PLPs) obtained from multiple sources. Beliefs in each PLP are modeled as conditional events attached with probability bounds. The major task of syntax-based merging is to obtain the most rational probability bound for each conditional event from the original PLPs to form a new PLP. We require the minimal change principle to be followed so that each source gives up its beliefs as little as possible. Some instantiated merging operators are derived from our merging framework. Furthermore, we propose a set of postulates for merging PLPs, some of which extend the postulates for merging classical knowledge bases, whilst others are specific to the merging of probabilistic beliefs.

In previous work, we proposed a modal fragment of the situation calculus called ES, which fully captures Reiter's basic action theories. ES also has epistemic features, including only-knowing, which refers to all that an agent knows in the sense of having a knowledge base. While our model of only-knowing has appealing properties in the static case, it appears to be problematic when actions come into play. First of all, its utility seems to be restricted to an agent's initial knowledge base. Second, while it has been shown that only-knowing correctly captures default inferences, this was only in the static case, and undesirable properties appear to arise in the presence of actions.  In this paper, we remedy both of these shortcomings and propose a new dynamic semantics of only-knowing, which is closely related to Lin and Reiter's notion of progression when actions are performed and where defaults behave properly.

The following activity recognition problem is considered: a description of the action capabilities of an agent being observed is given. This includes the preconditions and effects of atomic actions and of the activities (sequences of actions) the agent may execute. Given this description and a set of propositions, called history, about action occurrences, intended actions and properties of the world all at various points in time, the problem is to complete the picture as much as possible and determine what has already happened, what the intentions of the agent are, and what may happen as a result of the agent acting on those intentions. We present a framework to solve these activity recognition problems based on a formal language for reasoning about actions that includes a notion of intended actions, and a corresponding formalization in answer set programming.

We present a method to decompose a declarative knowledge base, given by a logic program under Answer Set Semantics with access to external sources. It overcomes the ineffectiveness of current methods due to a lack of structural information about these sources, viewed as black boxes, by exploiting independency information in accesses to them.  To this end, we develop a generic notion of domain independence that allows to restrict the evaluation domain and, as a consequence, to prune unnecessary dependency assumptions between atoms. This leads to increased decomposability, which we demonstrate by an evaluation method for HEX-programs based on program rewriting. Experiments show that this may yield large performance gains. While developed for a particular formalism, the notions and ideas of this  paper might be adapted to related formalisms as well.

Recently, the notion of accrual of arguments has received some attention from the argumentation community. Three principles for argument accrual have been identified as necessary to hold in argumentation frameworks. In this paper we propose an approach to model the accrual of arguments in the context of Defeasible Logic Programming, a logic programming approach to argumentation which has proven to be successful for many real-world applications. We will analyze the above mentioned principles in the context of our proposal, studying other interesting properties.