We study the combination of the following already known ideas for showing confluence of unconditional or conditional term rewriting systems into practically more useful confluence criteria for conditional systems: Our syntactical separation into constructor and non-constructor symbols, Huet's introduction and Toyama's generalization of parallel closedness for non-noetherian unconditional systems, the use of shallow confluence for proving confluence of noetherian and non-noetherian conditional systems, the idea that certain kinds of limited confluence can be assumed for checking the fulfilledness or infeasibility of the conditions of conditional critical pairs, and the idea that (when termination is given) only prime superpositions have to be considered and certain normalization restrictions can be applied for the substitutions fulfilling the conditions of conditional critical pairs. Besides combining and improving already known methods, we present the following new ideas and results: We strengthen the criterion for overlay joinable noetherian systems, and, by using the expressiveness of our syntactical separation into constructor and non-constructor symbols, we are able to present criteria for level confluence that are not criteria for shallow confluence actually and also able to weaken the severe requirement of normality (stiffened with left-linearity) in the criteria for shallow confluence of noetherian and non-noetherian conditional systems to the easily satisfied requirement of quasi-normality. Finally, the whole paper may also give a practically useful overview of the syntactical means for showing confluence of conditional term rewriting systems.

Using a human-oriented formal example proof of the (lim+) theorem, i.e. that the sum of limits is the limit of the sum, which is of value for reference on its own, we exhibit a non-permutability of beta-steps and delta+-steps (according to Smullyan's classification), which is not visible with non-liberalized delta-rules and not serious with further liberalized delta-rules, such as the delta++-rule. Besides a careful presentation of the search for a proof of (lim+) with several pedagogical intentions, the main subject is to explain why the order of beta-steps plays such a practically important role in some calculi.

Disjunctive finitary programs are a class of logic programs admitting function symbols and hence infinite domains. They have very good computational properties, for example ground queries are decidable while in the general case the stable model semantics is highly undecidable. In this paper we prove that a larger class of programs, called finitely recursive programs, preserves most of the good properties of finitary programs under the stable model semantics, namely: (i) finitely recursive programs enjoy a compactness property; (ii) inconsistency checking and skeptical reasoning are semidecidable; (iii) skeptical resolution is complete for normal finitely recursive programs. Moreover, we show how to check inconsistency and answer skeptical queries using finite subsets of the ground program instantiation. We achieve this by extending the splitting sequence theorem by Lifschitz and Turner: We prove that if the input program P is finitely recursive, then the partial stable models determined by any smooth splitting omega-sequence converge to a stable model of P.

This paper investigates the relationship between the Logical Algorithms language (LA) of Ganzinger and McAllester and Constraint Handling Rules (CHR). We present a translation schema from LA to CHR-rp: CHR with rule priorities, and show that the meta-complexity theorem for LA can be applied to a subset of CHR-rp via inverse translation. Inspired by the high-level implementation proposal for Logical Algorithm by Ganzinger and McAllester and based on a new scheduling algorithm, we propose an alternative implementation for CHR-rp that gives strong complexity guarantees and results in a new and accurate meta-complexity theorem for CHR-rp. It is furthermore shown that the translation from Logical Algorithms to CHR-rp combined with the new CHR-rp implementation, satisfies the required complexity for the Logical Algorithms meta-complexity result to hold.

Much of human knowledge is organized into sophisticated systems that are often called intuitive theories. We propose that intuitive theories are mentally represented in a logical language, and that the subjective complexity of a theory is determined by the length of its representation in this language. This complexity measure helps to explain how theories are learned from relational data, and how they support inductive inferences about unobserved relations. We describe two experiments that test our approach, and show that it provides a better account of human learning and reasoning than an approach developed by Goodman [1]. What is a theory, and what makes one theory better than another?

Much of human knowledge is organized into sophisticated systems that are often called intuitive theories. We propose that intuitive theories are mentally represented in a logical language, and that the subjective complexity of a theory is determined by the length of its representation in this language. This complexity measure helps to explain how theories are learned from relational data, and how they support inductive inferences about unobserved relations. We describe two experiments that test our approach, and show that it provides a better account of human learning and reasoning than an approach developed by Goodman [1]. What is a theory, and what makes one theory better than another?

Much of human knowledge is organized into sophisticated systems that are often called intuitive theories. We propose that intuitive theories are mentally represented ina logical language, and that the subjective complexity of a theory is determined by the length of its representation in this language. This complexity measure helps to explain how theories are learned from relational data, and how they support inductive inferences about unobserved relations. We describe two experiments that test our approach, and show that it provides a better account of human learning and reasoning than an approach developed by Goodman [1]. What is a theory, and what makes one theory better than another?

Inspired by the recently introduced framework of AND/OR search spaces for graphical models, we propose to augment Multi-Valued Decision Diagrams (MDD) with AND nodes, in order to capture function decomposition structure and to extend these compiled data structures to general weighted graphical models (e.g., probabilistic models). We present the AND/OR Multi-Valued Decision Diagram (AOMDD) which compiles a graphical model into a canonical form that supports polynomial (e.g., solution counting, belief updating) or constant time (e.g. equivalence of graphical models) queries. We provide two algorithms for compiling the AOMDD of a graphical model. The first is search-based, and works by applying reduction rules to the trace of the memory intensive AND/OR search algorithm. The second is inference-based and uses a Bucket Elimination schedule to combine the AOMDDs of the input functions via the the APPLY operator. For both algorithms, the compilation time and the size of the AOMDD are, in the worst case, exponential in the treewidth of the graphical model, rather than pathwidth as is known for ordered binary decision diagrams (OBDDs). We introduce the concept of semantic treewidth, which helps explain why the size of a decision diagram is often much smaller than the worst case bound. We provide an experimental evaluation that demonstrates the potential of AOMDDs.

Answer set programming (ASP) is a logic programming paradigm that can be used to solve complex combinatorial search problems. Aggregates are an ASP construct that plays an important role in many applications. Defining a satisfactory semantics of aggregates turned out to be a difficult problem, and in this paper we propose a new approach, based on an analogy between aggregates and propositional connectives. First, we extend the definition of an answer set/stable model to cover arbitrary propositional theories; then we define aggregates on top of them both as primitive constructs and as abbreviations for formulas. Our definition of an aggregate combines expressiveness and simplicity, and it inherits many theorems about programs with nested expressions, such as theorems about strong equivalence and splitting.

The paper introduces the notion of off-line justification for Answer Set Programming (ASP). Justifications provide a graph-based explanation of the truth value of an atom w.r.t. a given answer set. The paper extends also this notion to provide justification of atoms during the computation of an answer set (on-line justification), and presents an integration of on-line justifications within the computation model of Smodels. Off-line and on-line justifications provide useful tools to enhance understanding of ASP, and they offer a basic data structure to support methodologies and tools for debugging answer set programs. A preliminary implementation has been developed in ASP-PROLOG. (To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP))