Modern answer set programming solvers such as CLINGO support advanced language constructs that improve the expressivity and conciseness of logic programs. Conditional literals are one such construct. They form "subformulas" that behave as nested implications within the bodies of logic rules. Their inclusion brings the form of rules closer to the less restrictive syntax of first-order logic. These qualities make conditional literals useful tools for knowledge representation. In this paper, we propose a semantics for logic programs with conditional literals and arithmetic based on the SM operator. These semantics do not require grounding, unlike the established semantics for such programs that relies on a translation to infinitary propositional logic. The main result of this paper establishes the precise correspondence between the proposed and existing semantics.

Splitting a logic program allows us to reduce the task of computing its stable models to similar tasks for its subprograms. This can be used to increase solving performance and prove program correctness. We generalize the conditions under which this technique is applicable, by considering not only dependencies between predicates but also their arguments and context. This allows splitting programs commonly used in practice to which previous results were not applicable.

Knowledge refactoring compresses a logic program by introducing new rules. Current approaches struggle to scale to large programs. To overcome this limitation, we introduce a constrained optimisation refactoring approach. Our first key idea is to encode the problem with decision variables based on literals rather than rules. Our second key idea is to focus on linear invented rules. Our empirical results on multiple domains show that our approach can refactor programs quicker and with more compression than the previous state-of-the-art approach, sometimes by 60%.

We formulate discussion graph semantics of first-order logic with equality for reasoning about discussion and argumentation as naturally as we would reason about sentences. While there are a few existing proposals to use a formal logic for reasoning about argumentation, they are constructed bottom-up and specialised to the argumentation model by Dung. There is indeed a conspicuous lack of a formal reasoning framework for handling general discussion and argumentation models. We achieve the generality through a top-down formulation of the semantics of first-order logic (with equality) formulas, addressing the current shortage.

Automated theorem provers take as input the formal statement of a conjecture in a theory described by axioms and lemmas, and try to generate a proof or a counter-example for this conjecture. In the field of geometry, several efficient automated theorem proving approaches have been developed, including algebraic ones such as Wu's method, Gröbner bases method, and semi-synthetic methods such as the area method. In these approaches, typically, the conjecture and the axioms being considered are fixed. However, in mathematical practice, in the context of education and also in mathematical research, the conjecturing and proving activities are not separated but interleaved. The practitioner may try to prove a statement which is valid only assuming some implicit or unknown assumptions, while the list of lemmas and theorem which can be used may not be complete.

The ability to generalise from a small number of examples is a fundamental challenge in machine learning. To tackle this challenge, we introduce an inductive logic programming (ILP) approach that combines negation and predicate invention. Combining these two features allows an ILP system to generalise better by learning rules with universally quantified body-only variables. We implement our idea in NOPI, which can learn normal logic programs with predicate invention, including Datalog programs with stratified negation. Our experimental results on multiple domains show that our approach can improve predictive accuracies and learning times.

The goal of inductive logic programming is to induce a logic program (a set of logical rules) that generalises training examples. Inducing programs with many rules and literals is a major challenge. To tackle this challenge, we introduce an approach where we learn small non-separable programs and combine them. We implement our approach in a constraint-driven ILP system. Our approach can learn optimal and recursive programs and perform predicate invention. Our experiments on multiple domains, including game playing and program synthesis, show that our approach can drastically outperform existing approaches in terms of predictive accuracies and learning times, sometimes reducing learning times from over an hour to a few seconds.

Discovering novel abstractions is important for human-level AI. We introduce an approach to discover higher-order abstractions, such as map, filter, and fold. We focus on inductive logic programming, which induces logic programs from examples and background knowledge. We introduce the higher-order refactoring problem, where the goal is to compress a logic program by introducing higher-order abstractions. We implement our approach in STEVIE, which formulates the higher-order refactoring problem as a constraint optimisation problem. Our experimental results on multiple domains, including program synthesis and visual reasoning, show that, compared to no refactoring, STEVIE can improve predictive accuracies by 27% and reduce learning times by 47%. We also show that STEVIE can discover abstractions that transfer to different domains

A magic value in a program is a constant symbol that is essential for the execution of the program but has no clear explanation for its choice. Learning programs with magic values is difficult for existing program synthesis approaches. To overcome this limitation, we introduce an inductive logic programming approach to efficiently learn programs with magic values. Our experiments on diverse domains, including program synthesis, drug design, and game playing, show that our approach can (i) outperform existing approaches in terms of predictive accuracies and learning times, (ii) learn magic values from infinite domains, such as the value of pi, and (iii) scale to domains with millions of constant symbols.

Inductive logic programming is a type of machine learning in which logic programs are learned from examples. This learning typically occurs relative to some background knowledge provided as a logic program. This dissertation introduces bottom preprocessing, a method for generating initial constraints on the programs an ILP system must consider. Bottom preprocessing applies ideas from inverse entailment to modern ILP systems. Inverse entailment is an influential early ILP approach introduced with Progol. This dissertation also presents $\bot$-Popper, an implementation of bottom preprocessing for the modern ILP system Popper. It is shown experimentally that bottom preprocessing can reduce learning times of ILP systems on hard problems. This reduction can be especially significant when the amount of background knowledge in the problem is large.