Logic programs with ordered disjunction (LPODs) (Brewka 2002) generalize normal logic programs by combining alternative and ranked options in the heads of rules. It has been showed that LPODs are useful in a number of areas including game theory, policy languages, planning and argumentations. In this paper, we extend propositional LPODs to the first-order case, where a classical second-order formula is defined to capture the stable model semantics of the underlying first-order LPODs. We then develop a progression semantics that is equivalent to the stable model semantics but naturally represents the reasoning procedure of LPODs. We show that on finite structures, every LPOD can be translated to a first order sentence, which provides a basis for computing stable models of LPODs. We further study the complexity and expressiveness of LPODs and prove that almost positive LPODs precisely capture first-order normal logic programs, which indicates that ordered disjunction itself and constraints are sufficient to represent negation as failure.

Logic Programs with Ordered Disjunction (LPODs) extend classical logic programs with the capability of expressing alternatives with decreasing degrees of preference in the heads of program rules. Despite the fact that the operational meaning of ordered disjunction is clear, there exists an important open issue regarding its semantics. In particular, there does not exist a purely model-theoretic approach for determining the most preferred models of an LPOD. At present, the selection of the most preferred models is performed using a technique that is not based exclusively on the models of the program and in certain cases produces counterintuitive results. We provide a novel, model-theoretic semantics for LPODs, which uses an additional truth value in order to identify the most preferred models of a program. We demonstrate that the proposed approach overcomes the shortcomings of the traditional semantics of LPODs. Moreover, the new approach can be used to define the semantics of a natural class of logic programs that can have both ordered and classical disjunctions in the heads of clauses. This allows programs that can express not only strict levels of preferences but also alternatives that are equally preferred. This work is under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.

We introduce abstract preference frameworks to study general properties common across a variety of preference formalisms. In particular, we study strong equivalence in preference formalisms and their separability. We identify abstract postulates on preference frameworks, satisfied by most of the currently studied preference formalisms, that lead to characterizations of both properties of interest.

In this paper we consider a logical treatment for the ordered disjunction operator 'x' introduced by Brewka, Niemel\"a and Syrj\"anen in their Logic Programs with Ordered Disjunctions (LPOD). LPODs are used to represent preferences in logic programming under the answer set semantics. Their semantics is defined by first translating the LPOD into a set of normal programs (called split programs) and then imposing a preference relation among the answer sets of these split programs. We concentrate on the first step and show how a suitable translation of the ordered disjunction as a derived operator into the logic of Here-and-There allows capturing the answer sets of the split programs in a direct way. We use this characterisation not only for providing an alternative implementation for LPODs, but also for checking several properties (under strongly equivalent transformations) of the 'x' operator, like for instance, its distributivity with respect to conjunction or regular disjunction. We also make a comparison to an extension proposed by K\"arger, Lopes, Olmedilla and Polleres, that combines 'x' with regular disjunction.