Approximation Fixpoint Theory (AFT) is a powerful theory covering various semantics of non-monotonic reasoning formalisms in knowledge representation such as Logic Programming and Answer Set Programming. Many semantics of such non-monotonic formalisms can be characterized as suitable fixpoints of a non-monotonic operator on a suitable lattice. Instead of working on the original lattice, AFT operates on intervals in such lattice to approximate or construct the fixpoints of interest. While AFT has been applied successfully across a broad range of non-monotonic reasoning formalisms, it is confronted by its limitations in other, relatively simple, examples. In this paper, we overcome those limitations by extending consistent AFT to deal with approximations that are more refined than intervals. Therefore, we introduce a more general notion of approximation spaces, showcase the improved expressiveness and investigate relations between different approximation spaces.

Over the last decades, conditional independence was shown to be a crucial concept supporting adequate modelling and efficient reasoning in probabilistics (Pearl, Geiger, and Verma, 1989). It is the fundamental concept underlying network-based reasoning in probabilistics, which has been arguably one of the most important factors in the rise of contemporary artificial intelligence. Even though many reasoning tasks on the basis of probabilistic information have a high worst-case complexity due to their semantic nature, network-based models allow an efficient computation of many concrete instances of these reasoning tasks thanks to local reasoning techniques. Therefore, conditional independence has also been investigated for several approaches in knowledge representation, such as propositional logic (Darwiche, 1997; Lang, Liberatore, and Marquis, 2002), belief revision (Kern-Isberner, Heyninck, and Beierle, 2022; Lynn, Delgrande, and Peppas, 2022) and conditional logics (Heyninck et al., 2023). For many other central formalisms in KR, such a study has not yet been undertaken. Due to the wide variety of formalisms studied in knowledge representation, it is often beneficial yet challenging to study a concept in a language-independent manner. Indeed, such languageindependent studies avoid having to define and investigate the same concept for different formalisms. In recent years, a promising framework for such language-independent investigations is the algebraic approximation fixpoint theory (AFT) Denecker, Marek, and Truszczyński (2003), which conceives of KR-formalisms as operators over a lattice (such as the immediate consequence operator from logic programming).

In the past, there have been several attempts to explain logic programming under the well-founded semantics as a logic of inductive definitions. A weakness in all is the absence of an obvious connection between how we understand various types of informal inductive definitions in mathematical text and the complex mathematics of the well-founded semantics. We formalize the induction process in the most common principles and prove that the well-founded model construction generalizes them all.

Aggregates provide a concise way to express complex knowledge. While they are easily understood by humans, formalizing aggregates for answer set programming (ASP) has proven to be challenging . The literature offers many approaches that are not always compatible. One of these approaches, based on Approximation Fixpoint Theory (AFT), has been developed in a logic programming context and has not found much resonance in the ASP-community. In this paper we revisit this work. We introduce the abstract notion of a ternary satisfaction relation and define stable semantics in terms of it. We show that ternary satisfaction relations bridge the gap between the standard Gelfond-Lifschitz reduct, and stable semantics as defined in the framework of AFT. We analyse the properties of ternary satisfaction relations for handling aggregates in ASP programs. Finally, we show how different methods for handling aggregates taken from the literature can be described in the framework and we study the corresponding ternary satisfaction relations.

Justification theory is a unifying framework for semantics of non-monotonic logics. It is built on the notion of a justification, which intuitively is a graph that explains the truth value of certain facts in a structure. Knowledge representation languages covered by justification theory include logic programs, argumentation frameworks, inductive definitions, and nested inductive and coinductive definitions. In addition, justifications are also used for implementation purposes. They are used to compute unfounded sets in modern ASP solvers, can be used to check for relevance of atoms in complete search algorithms, and recent lazy grounding algorithms are built on top of them. In this extended abstract, we lay out possible extensions to justification theory.

In Knowledge Representation, it is crucial that knowledge engineers have a good understanding of the formal expressions that they write. What formal expressions state intuitively about the domain of discourse is studied in the theory of the informal semantics of a logic. In this paper we study the informal semantics of Answer Set Programming. The roots of answer set programming lie in the language of Extended Logic Programming, which was introduced initially as an epistemic logic for default and autoepistemic reasoning. In 1999, the seminal papers on answer set programming proposed to use this logic for a different purpose, namely, to model and solve search problems. Currently, the language is used primarily in this new role. However, the original epistemic intuitions lose their explanatory relevance in this new context. How answer set programs are connected to the specifications of problems they model is more easily explained in a classical Tarskian semantics, in which models correspond to possible worlds, rather than to belief states of an epistemic agent. In this paper, we develop a new theory of the informal semantics of answer set programming, which is formulated in the Tarskian setting and based on Frege's compositionality principle. It differs substantially from the earlier epistemic theory of informal semantics, providing a different view on the meaning of the connectives in answer set programming and on its relation to other logics, in particular classical logic.

Boolean functions in Answer Set Programming have proven a useful modelling tool. They are usually specified by means of aggregates or external atoms. A crucial step in computing answer sets for logic programs containing Boolean functions is verifying whether partial interpretations satisfy a Boolean function for all possible values of its undefined atoms. In this paper, we develop a new methodology for showing when such checks can be done in deterministic polynomial time. This provides a unifying view on all currently known polynomial-time decidability results, and furthermore identifies promising new classes that go well beyond the state of the art. Our main technique consists of using an ordering on the atoms to significantly reduce the necessary number of model checks. For many standard aggregates, we show how this ordering can be automatically obtained.

We study the logical properties of the (parametric) well-founded fixed point operation. We show that the operation satisfies several, but not all of the equational properties of fixed point operations described by the axioms of iteration theories.

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.  

Finding satisfying assignments for the variables involved in a set of constraints can be cast as a (bounded) model generation problem: search for (bounded) models of a theory in some logic. The state-of-the-art approach for bounded model generation for rich knowledge representation languages like ASP and FO(.) and a CSP modeling language such as Zinc, is ground-and-solve: reduce the theory to a ground or propositional one and apply a search algorithm to the resulting theory. An important bottleneck is the blow-up of the size of the theory caused by the grounding phase. Lazily grounding the theory during search is a way to overcome this bottleneck. We present a theoretical framework and an implementation in the context of the FO(.) knowledge representation language. Instead of grounding all parts of a theory, justifications are derived for some parts of it. Given a partial assignment for the grounded part of the theory and valid justifications for the formulas of the non-grounded part, the justifications provide a recipe to construct a complete assignment that satisfies the non-grounded part. When a justification for a particular formula becomes invalid during search, a new one is derived; if that fails, the formula is split in a part to be grounded and a part that can be justified. Experimental results illustrate the power and generality of this approach.