Answer Set Programming (ASP) is an important logic programming paradigm within the field of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. As a concise, human-readable, declarative language, ASP is an excellent tool for developing trustworthy (especially, artificially intelligent) software systems. However, formally verifying ASP programs offers some unique challenges, such as 1. a lack of modularity (the meanings of rules are difficult to define in isolation from the enclosing program), 2. the ground-and-solve semantics (the meanings of rules are dependent on the input data with which the program is grounded), and 3. limitations of existing tools. My research agenda has been focused on addressing these three issues with the intention of making ASP verification an accessible, routine task that is regularly performed alongside program development. In this vein, I have investigated alternative semantics for ASP based on translations into the logic of here-and-there and many-sorted first-order logic. These semantics promote a modular understanding of logic programs, bypass grounding, and enable us to use automated theorem provers to automatically verify properties of programs.

We investigates the concept of strong equivalence within the extended framework of Answer Set Programming with constraints. Two groups of rules are considered strongly equivalent if, informally speaking, they have the same meaning in any context. We demonstrate that, under certain assumptions, strong equivalence between rule sets in this extended setting can be precisely characterized by their equivalence in the logic of Here-and-There with constraints. Furthermore, we present a translation from the language of several clingo-based answer set solvers that handle constraints into the language of Here-and-There with constraints. This translation enables us to leverage the logic of Here-and-There to reason about strong equivalence within the context of these solvers. We also explore the computational complexity of determining strong equivalence in this context.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a prominent rule-based language for knowledge representation and reasoning with roots in logic programming and non-monotonic reasoning. The aim to capture the essence of removing (ir)relevant details in ASP programs led to the investigation of different notions, from strong persistence (SP) forgetting, to faithful abstractions, and, recently, strong simplifications, where the latter two can be seen as relaxed and strengthened notions of forgetting, respectively. Although it was observed that these notions are related, especially given that they have characterizations through the semantics for strong equivalence, it remained unclear whether they can be brought together. In this work, we bridge this gap by introducing a novel relativized equivalence notion, which is a relaxation of the recent simplification notion, that is able to capture all related notions from the literature. We provide necessary and sufficient conditions for relativized simplifiability, which shows that the challenging part is for when the context programs do not contain all the atoms to remove. We then introduce an operator that combines projection and a relaxation of (SP)-forgetting to obtain the relativized simplifications. We furthermore present complexity results that complete the overall picture.

With the increase in industrial applications using Answer Set Programming, the need for formal verification tools, particularly for critical applications, has also increased. During the program optimisation process, it would be desirable to have a tool which can automatically verify whether an optimised subprogram can replace the original subprogram. Formally this corresponds to the problem of verifying the strong equivalence of two programs. In order to do so, the translation tool anthem was developed. It can be used in conjunction with an automated theorem prover for classical logic to verify that two programs are strongly equivalent. With the current version of anthem, only the strong equivalence of positive programs with a restricted input language can be verified. This is a result of the translation $\tau^*$ implemented in anthem that produces formulas in the logic of here-and-there, which coincides with classical logic only for positive programs. This thesis extends anthem in order to overcome these limitations. First, the transformation $\sigma^*$ is presented, which transforms formulas from the logic of here-and-there to classical logic. A theorem formalises how $\sigma^*$ can be used to express equivalence in the logic of here-and-there in classical logic. Second, the translation $\tau^*$ is extended to programs containing pools. Another theorem shows how $\sigma^*$ can be combined with $\tau^*$ to express the strong equivalence of two programs in classical logic. With $\sigma^*$ and the extended $\tau^*$, it is possible to express the strong equivalence of logic programs containing negation, simple choices, and pools. Both the extended $\tau^*$ and $\sigma^*$ are implemented in a new version of anthem. Several examples of logic programs containing pools, negation, and simple choice rules, which the new version of anthem can translate to classical logic, are presented. Some a...

In this paper we introduce a novel semantics, called defense semantics, for Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks in terms of a notion of (partial) defence, which is a triple encoding that one argument is (partially) defended by another argument via attacking the attacker of the first argument. In terms of defense semantics, we show that defenses related to self-attacked arguments and arguments in 3-cycles are unsatifiable under any situation and therefore can be removed without affecting the defense semantics of an AF. Then, we introduce a new notion of defense equivalence of AFs, and compare defense equivalence with standard equivalence and strong equivalence, respectively. Finally, by exploiting defense semantics, we define two kinds of reasons for accepting arguments, i.e., direct reasons and root reasons, and a notion of root equivalence of AFs that can be used in argumentation summarization.

A common feature of non-monotonic logics is that the classical notion of equivalence does not preserve the intended meaning in light of additional information. Consequently, the term strong equivalence was coined in the literature and thoroughly investigated. In the present paper, the knowledge representation formalism under consideration is claim-augmented argumentation frameworks (CAFs) which provide a formal basis to analyze conclusion-oriented problems in argumentation by adapting a claim-focused perspective. CAFs extend Dung AFs by associating a claim to each argument representing its conclusion. In this paper, we investigate both ordinary and strong equivalence in CAFs. Thereby, we take the fact into account that one might either be interested in the actual arguments or their claims only. The former point of view naturally yields an extension of strong equivalence for AFs to the claim-based setting while the latter gives rise to a novel equivalence notion which is genuine for CAFs. We tailor, examine and compare these notions and obtain a comprehensive study of this matter for CAFs. We conclude by investigating the computational complexity of naturally arising decision problems.

This paper is a contribution to the research on dynamics in assumption-based argumentation (ABA). We investigate situations where a given knowledge base undergoes certain changes. We show that two frequently investigated problems, namely enforcement of a given target atom and deciding strong equivalence of two given ABA frameworks, are intractable in general. Notably, these problems are both tractable for abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) which admit a close correspondence to ABA by constructing semanticspreserving instances. Inspired by this observation, we search for tractable fragments for ABA frameworks by means of the instantiated AFs. We argue that the usual instantiation procedure is not suitable for the investigation of dynamic scenarios since too much information is lost when constructing the abstract framework. We thus consider an extension of AFs, called cvAFs, equipping arguments with conclusions and vulnerabilities in order to better anticipate their role after the underlying knowledge base is extended. We investigate enforcement and strong equivalence for cvAFs and present syntactic conditions to decide them. We show that the correspondence between cvAFs and ABA frameworks is close enough to capture dynamics in ABA. This yields the desired tractable fragment. We furthermore discuss consequences for the corresponding problems for logic programs.

We introduce the framework of qualitative optimization problems (or, simply, optimization problems) to represent preference theories. The formalism uses separate modules to describe the space of outcomes to be compared (the generator) and the preferences on outcomes (the selector). We consider two types of optimization problems. They differ in the way the generator, which we model by a propositional theory, is interpreted: by the standard propositional logic semantics, and by the equilibrium-model (answer-set) semantics. Under the latter interpretation of generators, optimization problems directly generalize answer-set optimization programs proposed previously. We study strong equivalence of optimization problems, which guarantees their interchangeability within any larger context. We characterize several versions of strong equivalence obtained by restricting the class of optimization problems that can be used as extensions and establish the complexity of associated reasoning tasks. Understanding strong equivalence is essential for modular representation of optimization problems and rewriting techniques to simplify them without changing their inherent properties.

We consider knowledge representation (KR) formalisms as collections of finite knowledge bases with a model-theoretic semantics. In this setting, we show that for every KR formalism there is a formalism that characterizes strong equivalence in the original formalism, that is unique up to isomorphism and that has a model theory similar to classical logic.

A central question in knowledge representation is the following: given some knowledge representation formalism, is it possible, and if so how, to simplify parts of a knowledge base without affecting its meaning, even in the light of additional information? The term strong equivalence was coined in the literature, i.e. strongly equivalent knowledge bases can be locally replaced by each other in a bigger theory without changing the semantics of the latter. In contrast to classical (monotone) logics where standard and strong equivalence coincide, it is possible to find ordinary but not strongly equivalent objects for any nonmonotonic formalism available in the literature.