ICLP is the premier international event for presenting research in logic programming. Contributions to ICLP 2021 were sought in all areas of logic programming, including but not limited to: Foundations: Semantics, Formalisms, Nonmonotonic reasoning, Knowledge representation. Languages issues: Concurrency, Objects, Coordination, Mobility, Higher order, Types, Modes, Assertions, Modules, Meta-programming, Logic-based domain-specific languages, Programming techniques. Programming support: Program analysis, Transformation, Validation, Verification, Debugging, Profiling, Testing, Execution visualization. Implementation: Compilation, Virtual machines, Memory management, Parallel and Distributed execution, Constraint handling rules, Tabling, Foreign interfaces, User interfaces. Related Paradigms and Synergies: Inductive and coinductive logic programming, Constraint logic programming, Answer set programming, Interaction with SAT, SMT and CSP solvers, Theorem proving, Argumentation, Probabilistic programming, Machine learning. Applications: Databases, Big data, Data integration and federation, Software engineering, Natural language processing, Web and semantic web, Agents, Artificial intelligence, Computational life sciences, Cyber-security, Robotics, Education.

We build on a recently proposed method for explaining solutions of constraint satisfaction problems. An explanation here is a sequence of simple inference steps, where the simplicity of an inference step is measured by the number and types of constraints and facts used, and where the sequence explains all logical consequences of the problem. We build on these formal foundations and tackle two emerging questions, namely how to generate explanations that are provably optimal (with respect to the given cost metric) and how to generate them efficiently. To answer these questions, we develop 1) an implicit hitting set algorithm for finding optimal unsatisfiable subsets; 2) a method to reduce multiple calls for (optimal) unsatisfiable subsets to a single call that takes constraints on the subset into account, and 3) a method for re-using relevant information over multiple calls to these algorithms. The method is also applicable to other problems that require finding cost-optimal unsatiable subsets. We specifically show that this approach can be used to effectively find sequences of optimal explanation steps for constraint satisfaction problems like logic grid puzzles.

Answer set programming (ASP) is a well-established knowledge representation formalism. Most ASP solvers are based on (extensions of) technology from Boolean satisfiability solving. While these solvers have shown to be very successful in many practical applications, their strength is limited by their underlying proof system, resolution. In this paper, we present a new tool LP2PB that translates ASP programs into pseudo-Boolean theories, for which solvers based on the (stronger) cutting plane proof system exist. We evaluate our tool, and the potential of cutting-plane-based solving for ASP on traditional ASP benchmarks as well as benchmarks from pseudo-Boolean solving. Our results are mixed: overall, traditional ASP solvers still outperform our translational approach, but several benchmark families are identified where the balance shifts the other way, thereby suggesting that further investigation into a stronger proof system for ASP is valuable.

Justification theory is a unifying semantic framework. While it has its roots in non-monotonic logics, it can be applied to various areas in computer science, especially in explainable reasoning; its most central concept is a justification: an explanation why a property holds (or does not hold) in a model. In this paper, we continue the study of justification theory by means of three major contributions. The first is studying the relation between justification theory and game theory. We show that justification frameworks can be seen as a special type of games. The established connection provides the theoretical foundations for our next two contributions. The second contribution is studying under which condition two different dialects of justification theory (graphs as explanations vs trees as explanations) coincide. The third contribution is establishing a precise criterion of when a semantics induced by justification theory yields consistent results. In the past proving that such semantics were consistent took cumbersome and elaborate proofs. We show that these criteria are indeed satisfied for all common semantics of logic programming. This paper is under consideration for acceptance in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).

We explore the problem of step-wise explaining how to solve constraint satisfaction problems, with a use case on logic grid puzzles. More specifically, we study the problem of explaining the inference steps that one can take during propagation, in a way that is easy to interpret for a person. Thereby, we aim to give the constraint solver explainable agency, which can help in building trust in the solver by being able to understand and even learn from the explanations. The main challenge is that of finding a sequence of simple explanations, where each explanation should aim to be as cognitively easy as possible for a human to verify and understand. This contrasts with the arbitrary combination of facts and constraints that the solver may use when propagating. We propose the use of a cost function to quantify how simple an individual explanation of an inference step is, and identify the explanation-production problem of finding the best sequence of explanations of a CSP. Our approach is agnostic of the underlying constraint propagation mechanisms, and can provide explanations even for inference steps resulting from combinations of constraints. In case multiple constraints are involved, we also develop a mechanism that allows to break the most difficult steps up and thus gives the user the ability to zoom in on specific parts of the explanation. Our proposed algorithm iteratively constructs the explanation sequence by using an optimistic estimate of the cost function to guide the search for the best explanation at each step. Our experiments on logic grid puzzles show the feasibility of the approach in terms of the quality of the individual explanations and the resulting explanation sequences obtained.

Since the first conference held in Marseille in 1982, ICLP has been the premier international event for presenting research in logic programming. Contributions are sought in all areas of logic programming, including but not restricted to: Foundations: Semantics, Formalisms, Nonmonotonic reasoning, Knowledge representation. Languages: Concurrency, Objects, Coordination, Mobility, Higher Order, Types, Modes, Assertions, Modules, Meta-programming, Logic-based domain-specific languages, Programming Techniques. Declarative programming: Declarative program development, Analysis, Type and mode inference, Partial evaluation, Abstract interpretation, Transformation, Validation, Verification, Debugging, Profiling, Testing, Execution visualization Implementation: Virtual machines, Compilation, Memory management, Parallel/distributed execution, Constraint handling rules, Tabling, Foreign interfaces, User interfaces. Related Paradigms and Synergies: Inductive and Co-inductive Logic Programming, Constraint Logic Programming, Answer Set Programming, Interaction with SAT, SMT and CSP solvers, Logic programming techniques for type inference and theorem proving, Argumentation, Probabilistic Logic Programming, Relations to object-oriented and Functional programming. Applications: Databases, Big Data, Data integration and federation, Software engineering, Natural language processing, Web and Semantic Web, Agents, Artificial intelligence, Computational life sciences, Education, Cybersecurity, and Robotics.

To appear in the proceedings of LPAR 21. Solving complex problems can involve non-trivial combinations of distinct knowledge bases and problem solvers. The Algebra of Modular Systems is a knowledge representation framework that provides a method for formally specifying such systems in purely semantic terms. Formally, an expression of the algebra defines a class of structures. Many expressive formalism used in practice solve the model expansion task, where a structure is given on the input and an expansion of this structure in the defined class of structures is searched (this practice overcomes the common undecidability problem for expressive logics). In this paper, we construct a solver for the model expansion task for a complex modular systems from an expression in the algebra and black-box propagators or solvers for the primitive modules. To this end, we define a general notion of propagators equipped with an explanation mechanism, an extension of the alge- bra to propagators, and a lazy conflict-driven learning algorithm. The result is a framework for seamlessly combining solving technology from different domains to produce a solver for a combined system.

Recent work by Janhunen, Tasharrofi, and Ternovska (2016) started from the following observation: "if SAT From the result of this oracle call, a learned clause is generated and added to ϕ. Now that formalism; (2) It can be immediately combined with other these highly-performant SATsolvers exist, research often SAT extensions (such as integer variables, acyclicity, or any stretches beyond SAT, either because of trying to tackle other theory propagator); (3) No dedicated propagators need problems of a complexity higher than NP or because the input to be developed for the new extension because the nested format of SAT solvers (propositional logic) is too limited solver is (automatically) used as a propagator for its internal to concisely and naturally express certain domain specific theory; for example, it was shown by Janhunen, Tasharrofi, constraints, such as graph properties.

Algebraical fixpoint theory is an invaluable instrument for studying semantics of logics. For example, all major semantics of logic programming, autoepistemic logic, default logic and more recently, abstract argumentation have been shown to be induced by the different types of fixpoints defined in approximation fixpoint theory (AFT). In this paper, we add a new type of fixpoint to AFT: a grounded fixpoint of lattice operator O : L → L is defined as a lattice element x ∈ L such that O(x) = x and for all v ∈ L such that O(v ∧ x) ≤ v, it holds that x ≤ v. On the algebraical level, we show that all grounded fixpoints are minimal fixpoints approximated by the well-founded fixpoint and that all stable fixpoints are grounded. On the logical level, grounded fixpoints provide a new mathematically simple and compact type of semantics for any logic with a (possibly non-monotone) semantic operator. We explain the intuition underlying this semantics in the context of logic programming by pointing out that grounded fixpoints of the immediate consequence operator are interpretations that have no non-trivial unfounded sets. We also analyse the complexity of the induced semantics. Summarised, grounded fixpoint semantics is a new, probably the simplest and most compact, element in the family of semantics that capture basic intuitions and principles of various non-monotonic logics.  

Cause-effect relations are an important part of human knowledge. In real life, humans often reason about complex causes linked to complex effects. By comparison, existing formalisms for representing knowledge about causal relations are quite limited in the kind of specifications of causes and effects they allow. In this paper, we present the new language C-Log, which offers a significantly more expressive representation of effects, including such features as the creation of new objects. We show how C-Log integrates with first-order logic, resulting in the language FO(C). We also compare FO(C) with several related languages and paradigms, including inductive definitions, disjunctive logic programming, business rules and extensions of Datalog.