In order to meet usability requirements, most logic-based applications provide explanation facilities for reasoning services. This holds also for DLs, where research has focused on the explanation of both TBox reasoning and, more recently, query answering. Besides explaining the presence of a tuple in a query answer, it is important to explain also why a given tuple is missing. We address the latter problem for (conjunctive) query answering over DL-Lite ontologies, by adopting abductive reasoning, that is, we look for additions to the ABox that force a given tuple to be in the result. As reasoning taskswe consider existence and recognition of an explanation, and relevance and necessity of a certain assertion for an explanation. We characterize the computational complexity of these problems for subset minimal and cardinality minimal explanations.

Argumentation is a human-like reasoning mechanism contributing to the formalization of commonsense reasoning. In the last decade, several argument-based formalisms have emerged, with application in many areas, such as legal reasoning, autonomous agents and multi-agent systems; many are based on Dung's seminal work characterizing Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AF). Recent research in the area has led to Temporal Argumentation Frameworks (TAF) that extend Dung's by considering the temporal availability of arguments. In this work we introduce a novel framework, called Extended Temporal Argumentation Framework (E-TAF), extending TAF with the capability of modeling availability of attacks among arguments, which allows for instance to model reliability of arguments varying over time. We show how E-TAF can be enriched by considering Structured Abstract Argumentation, adding compositional elements to the abstract arguments involved based on a simplified version of the recently introduced Dynamic Argumentation Frameworks.

We present a system capable of automatically solving combinatorial logic puzzles given in (simplified) English. It uses an ontology to represent the puzzles in ASP which is applicable to a large set of logic puzzles. To translate the English descriptions of the puzzles into this ontology, we use a lambda-calculus based approach using Probabilistic Combinatorial Categorial Grammars (PCCG) where the meanings of words are associated with parameters to be able to distinguish between multiple meanings of the same word.

Unification in Description Logics (DLs) has been proposed as an inference service that can, for example, be used to detect redundancies in ontologies. The inexpressive Description Logic EL is of particular interest in this context since, on the one hand, several large biomedical ontologies are defined using EL. On the other hand, unification in EL has recently been shown to be NP-complete, and thus of significantly lower complexity than unification in other DLs of similarly restricted expressive power. However, the unification algorithms for EL developed so far cannot deal with general concept inclusion axioms (GCIs). This paper makes a considerable step towards addressing this problem, but the GCIs our new unification algorithm can deal with still need to satisfy a certain cycle restriction.

In this paper, we study the problem of exchanging knowledge between a source and a target knowledge base (KB), connected through mappings. Differently from the traditional database exchange setting, which considers only the exchange of data, we are interested in exchanging implicit knowledge. As representation formalism we use Description Logics (DLs), thus assuming that the source and target KBs are given as a DL TBox ABox, while the mappings have the form of DL TBox assertions. We study the problem of translating the knowledge in the source KB according to these mappings. We define a general framework of KB exchange, and address the problems of representing implicit source information in the target, and of computing different kinds of solutions, i.e., target KBs with specified properties, given a source KB and a mapping.

In this paper, we present an alternative to the Turing Test that has some conceptual and practical advantages. A Winograd schema is a pair of sentences that differ only in one or two words and that contain a referential ambiguity that is resolved in opposite directions in the two sentences. We have compiled a collection of Winograd schemas, designed so that the correct answer is obvious to the human reader, but cannot easily be found using selectional restrictions or statistical techniques over text corpora. A contestant in the Winograd Schema Challenge is presented with a collection of one sentence from each pair, and required to achieve human-level accuracy in choosing the correct disambiguation.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a fully-declarative logic programming paradigm, which has been proposed in the area of knowledge representation and non-monotonic reasoning. Nowadays, the formal properties of ASP are well-understood, efficient ASP systems are available, and, recently, ASP has been employed in a few industrial applications. However, ASP technology is not mature for a successful exploitation in industry yet; mainly because ASP technologies are not integrated in the well-assessed development processes and platforms which are tailored for imperative/object-oriented programming languages. In this paper we present a new programming framework blending ASP with Java. The framework is based on JASP, an hybrid language that transparently supports a bilateral interaction between ASP and Java. JASP specifications are compliant with the JPA standard to perfectly fit extensively-adopted enterprise application technologies. The framework also encompasses an implementation of JASP as a plug-in for the Eclipse platform, called JDLV, which includes a compiler from JASP to Java. Moreover, we show a real-world application developed with JASP and JDLV, which highlights the effectiveness of our ASP–Java integration framework.

A bipolar framework is introduced for combining agents' beliefs so as to enable them to reach a common shared position or viewpoint. Our approach exploits the truth-gaps inherent to propositions involving vague concepts, by allowing agents to soften directly conflicting opinions. To this end we adopt a bipolar truth-model for propositional logic characterised by lower and upper valuations on the sentences of the language. According to this model sentences may be absolutely true, absolutely false or borderline (i.e.

Possibilistic logic is a well-known logic for reasoning under uncertainty, which is based on the idea that the epistemic state of an agent can be modeled by assigning to each possible world a degree of possibility, taken from a totally ordered, but essentially qualitative scale. Recently, a generalization has been proposed that extends possibilistic logic to a meta-epistemic logic, endowing it with the capability of reasoning about epistemic states, rather than merely constraining them. In this paper, we further develop this generalized possibilistic logic (GPL). We introduce an axiomatization showing that GPL is a fragment of a graded version of the modal logic KD, and we prove soundness and completeness w.r.t. a semantics in terms of possibility distributions. Next, we reveal a close link between the well-known stable model semantics for logic programming and the notion of minimally specific models in GPL. More generally, we analyze the relationship between the equilibrium logic of Pearce and GPL, showing that GPL can essentially be seen as a generalization of equilibrium logic, although its notion of minimal specificity is slightly more demanding than the notion of minimality underlying equilibrium logic.

Qualitative information about spatial or temporal entities is represented by specifying qualitative relations between these entities. It is then possible to apply qualitative reasoning methods for tasks such as checking consistency of the given information, deriving previously unknown information or answering queries. Depending on the kind of information that is represented, qualitative reasoning methods might lead to incorrect results, and it is a topic of ongoing research efforts to determine when and why this occurs. In this paper we present two possible explanations for this behaviour: (1) the existence of implicit entities that we do not explicitly represent; (2) the existence of implicit constraints that have to be satisfied, but which are not explicitly represented. We show that both of these can lead to undetected inconsistencies. By making these implicit entities and constraints explicit, and by including them in the qualitative representation, we are able to solve problems that could not be solved qualitatively before.