This paper describes the [Lscr ][Dscr ][Lscr ]++ system and the research advances that have enabled its design and development. We begin by discussing the new nonmonotonic and nondeterministic constructs that extend the functionality of the [Lscr ][Dscr ][Lscr ]++ language, while preserving its model-theoretic and fixpoint semantics. Then, we describe the execution model and the open architecture designed to support these new constructs and to facilitate the integration with existing DBMSs and applications. Finally, we describe the lessons learned by using [Lscr ][Dscr ][Lscr ]++ on various tested applications, such as middleware and datamining.

Learning probabilistic logic programming languages is receiving an increasing attention, and systems are available for learning the parameters (PRISM, LeProbLog, LFI-ProbLog and EMBLEM) or both structure and parameters (SEM-CP-logic and SLIPCASE) of these languages. In this paper we present the algorithm SLIPCOVER for “Structure LearnIng of Probabilistic logic programs by searChing OVER the clause space.” It performs a beam search in the space of probabilistic clauses and a greedy search in the space of theories using the log likelihood of the data as the guiding heuristics. To estimate the log likelihood, SLIPCOVER performs Expectation Maximization with EMBLEM. The algorithm has been tested on five real world datasets and compared with SLIPCASE, SEM-CP-logic, Aleph and two algorithms for learning Markov Logic Networks (Learning using Structural Motifs (LSM) and ALEPH++ExactL1). SLIPCOVER achieves higher areas under the precision-recall and receiver operating characteristic curves in most cases.

Today, there exist many different probabilistic programming languages as well as more inference mechanisms for these languages. Still, most logic programming-based languages use backward reasoning based on Selective Linear Definite resolution for inference. While these methods are typically computationally efficient, they often can neither handle infinite and/or continuous distributions nor evidence. To overcome these limitations, we introduce distributional clauses, a variation and extension of Sato's distribution semantics. We also contribute a novel approximate inference method that integrates forward reasoning with importance sampling, a well-known technique for probabilistic inference. In order to achieve efficiency, we integrate two logic programming techniques to direct forward sampling. Magic sets are used to focus on relevant parts of the program, while the integration of backward reasoning allows one to identify and avoid regions of the sample space that are inconsistent with the evidence.

We propose a framework for modeling uncertainty where both belief and doubt can be given independent, first-class status. We adopt probability theory as the mathematical formalism for manipulating uncertainty. An agent can express the uncertainty in her knowledge about a piece of information in the form of a confidence level, consisting of a pair of intervals of probability, one for each of her belief and doubt. The space of confidence levels naturally leads to the notion of a trilattice, similar in spirit to Fitting's bilattices. Intuitively, the points in such a trilattice can be ordered according to truth, information, or precision. We develop a framework for probabilistic deductive databases by associating confidence levels with the facts and rules of a classical deductive database. While the trilattice structure offers a variety of choices for defining the semantics of probabilistic deductive databases, our choice of semantics is based on the truth-ordering, which we find to be closest to the classical framework for deductive databases. In addition to proposing a declarative semantics based on valuations and an equivalent semantics based on fixpoint theory, we also propose a proof procedure and prove it sound and complete. We show that while classical Datalog query programs have a polynomial time data complexity, certain query programs in the probabilistic deductive database framework do not even terminate on some input databases. We identify a large natural class of query programs of practical interest in our framework, and show that programs in this class possess polynomial time data complexity, i.e. not only do they terminate on every input database, they are guaranteed to do so in a number of steps polynomial in the input database size.

We present the hybrid ASP solver clingcon, combining the simple modeling language and the high performance Boolean solving capacities of Answer Set Programming (ASP) with techniques for using non-Boolean constraints from the area of Constraint Programming (CP). The new clingcon system features an extended syntax supporting global constraints and optimize statements for constraint variables. The major technical innovation improves the interaction between ASP and CP solver through elaborated learning techniques based on irreducible inconsistent sets. A broad empirical evaluation shows that these techniques yield a performance improvement of an order of magnitude.

We introduce an approach to detecting inconsistencies in large biological networks by using answer set programming. To this end, we build upon a recently proposed notion of consistency between biochemical/genetic reactions and high-throughput profiles of cell activity. We then present an approach based on answer set programming to check the consistency of large-scale data sets. Moreover, we extend this methodology to provide explanations for inconsistencies by determining minimal representations of conflicts. In practice, this can be used to identify unreliable data or to indicate missing reactions.

The recent series 5 of the Answer Set Programming (ASP) system clingo provides generic means to enhance basic ASP with theory reasoning capabilities. We instantiate this framework with different forms of linear constraints and elaborate upon its formal properties. Given this, we discuss the respective implementations, and present techniques for using these constraints in a reactive context. More precisely, we introduce extensions to clingo with difference and linear constraints over integers and reals, respectively, and realize them in complementary ways. Finally, we empirically evaluate the resulting clingo derivatives clingo[dl] and clingo[lp] on common language fragments and contrast them to related ASP systems.

B-Prolog is a high-performance implementation of the standard Prolog language with several extensions including matching clauses, action rules for event handling, finite-domain constraint solving, arrays and hash tables, declarative loop constructs, and tabling. The B-Prolog system is based on the Tree-Oriented Abstract Machine (TOAM) architecture which differs from the Warren Abstract Machine (WAM) mainly in that (1) arguments are passed old fashionedly through the stack, (2) only one frame is used for each predicate call, and (3) instructions are provided for encoding matching trees. The most recent architecture, called TOAM Jr., departs further from the WAM in that it employs no registers for arguments or temporary variables, and provides variable-size instructions for encoding predicate calls. This paper gives an overview of the language features and a detailed description of the TOAM Jr. architecture, including architectural support for action rules and tabling.

SICStus Prolog has evolved for nearly 25 years. This is an appropriate point in time for revisiting the main language and design decisions, and try to distill some lessons. SICStus Prolog was conceived in a context of multiple, conflicting Prolog dialect camps and a fledgling standardization effort. We reflect on the impact of this effort and role model implementations on our development. After summarizing the development history, we give a guided tour of the system anatomy, exposing some designs that were not published before. We give an overview of our new interactive development environment, and describe a sample of key applications. Finally, we try to identify key good and not so good design decisions.

We present a system for recognising human activity given a symbolic representation of video content. The input of our system is a set of time-stamped short-term activities (STA) detected on video frames. The output is a set of recognised long-term activities (LTA), which are pre-defined temporal combinations of STA. The constraints on the STA that, if satisfied, lead to the recognition of an LTA, have been expressed using a dialect of the Event Calculus. In order to handle the uncertainty that naturally occurs in human activity recognition, we adapted this dialect to a state-of-the-art probabilistic logic programming framework. We present a detailed evaluation and comparison of the crisp and probabilistic approaches through experimentation on a benchmark dataset of human surveillance videos.

An important issue towards a broader acceptance of answer-set programming (ASP) is the deployment of tools which support the programmer during the coding phase. In particular, methods for debugging an answer-set program are recognised as a crucial step in this regard. Initial work on debugging in ASP mainly focused on propositional programs, yet practical debuggers need to handle programs with variables as well. In this paper, we discuss a debugging technique that is directly geared towards non-ground programs. Following previous work, we address the central debugging question why some interpretation is not an answer set. The explanations provided by our method are computed by means of a meta-programming technique, using a uniform encoding of a debugging request in terms of ASP itself. Our method also permits programs containing comparison predicates and integer arithmetics, thus covering a relevant language class commonly supported by all state-of-the-art ASP solvers.

We present a declarative language, ${\cal PP}$, for the high-level specification of preferences between possible solutions (or trajectories) of a planning problem. This novel language allows users to elegantly express non-trivial, multi-dimensional preferences and priorities over such preferences. The semantics of ${\cal PP}$ allows the identification of most preferred trajectories for a given goal. We also provide an answer set programming implementation of planning problems with ${\cal PP}$ preferences.

An answer set is a plain set of literals which has no further structure that would explain why certain literals are part of it and why others are not. We show how argumentation theory can help to explain why a literal is or is not contained in a given answer set by defining two justification methods, both of which make use of the correspondence between answer sets of a logic program and stable extensions of the assumption-based argumentation (ABA) framework constructed from the same logic program. Attack Trees justify a literal in argumentation-theoretic terms, i.e. using arguments and attacks between them, whereas ABA-Based Answer Set Justifications express the same justification structure in logic programming terms, that is using literals and their relationships. Interestingly, an ABA-Based Answer Set Justification corresponds to an admissible fragment of the answer set in question, and an Attack Tree corresponds to an admissible fragment of the stable extension corresponding to this answer set.

We present the third generation of the constraint answer set system clingcon, combining Answer Set Programming (ASP) with finite domain constraint processing (CP). While its predecessors rely on a black-box approach to hybrid solving by integrating the CP solver gecode, the new clingcon system pursues a lazy approach using dedicated constraint propagators to extend propagation in the underlying ASP solver clasp. No extension is needed for parsing and grounding clingcon's hybrid modeling language since both can be accommodated by the new generic theory handling capabilities of the ASP grounder gringo. As a whole, clingcon 3 is thus an extension of the ASP system clingo 5, which itself relies on the grounder gringo and the solver clasp. The new approach of clingcon offers a seamless integration of CP propagation into ASP solving that benefits from the whole spectrum of clasp's reasoning modes, including, for instance, multi-shot solving and advanced optimization techniques. This is accomplished by a lazy approach that unfolds the representation of constraints and adds it to that of the logic program only when needed. Although the unfolding is usually dictated by the constraint propagators during solving, it can already be partially (or even totally) done during preprocessing. Moreover, clingcon's constraint preprocessing and propagation incorporate several well-established CP techniques that greatly improve its performance. We demonstrate this via an extensive empirical evaluation contrasting, first, the various techniques in the context of CSP solving and, second, the new clingcon system with other hybrid ASP systems.

Logic programming under the answer-set semantics nowadays deals with numerous different notions of program equivalence. This is due to the fact that equivalence for substitution (known as strong equivalence) and ordinary equivalence are different concepts. The former holds, given programs P and Q, iff P can be faithfully replaced by Q within any context R, while the latter holds iff P and Q provide the same output, that is, they have the same answer sets. Notions in between strong and ordinary equivalence have been introduced as theoretical tools to compare incomplete programs and are defined by either restricting the syntactic structure of the considered context programs R or by bounding the set of atoms allowed to occur in R (relativized equivalence). For the latter approach, different yield properly different equivalence notions, in general. For the former approach, however, it turned out that any “reasonable” syntactic restriction to R coincides with either ordinary, strong, or uniform equivalence (for uniform equivalence, the context ranges over arbitrary sets of facts, rather than program rules). In this paper, we propose a parameterization for equivalence notions which takes care of both such kinds of restrictions simultaneously by bounding, on the one hand, the atoms which are allowed to occur in the rule heads of the context and, on the other hand, the atoms which are allowed to occur in the rule bodies of the context. We introduce a general semantical characterization which includes known ones as SE-models (for strong equivalence) or UE-models (for uniform equivalence) as special cases. Moreover, we provide complexity bounds for the problem in question and sketch a possible implementation method making use of dedicated systems for checking ordinary equivalence.

Answer-set programming (ASP) is a truly declarative programming paradigm proposed in the area of non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming, which has been recently employed in many applications. The development of efficient ASP systems is, thus, crucial. Having in mind the task of improving the solving methods for ASP, there are two usual ways to reach this goal: (i) extending state-of-the-art techniques and ASP solvers or (ii) designing a new ASP solver from scratch. An alternative to these trends is to build on top of state-of-the-art solvers, and to apply machine learning techniques for choosing automatically the “best” available solver on a per-instance basis.

In this paper, we pursue this latter direction. We first define a set of cheap-to-compute syntactic features that characterize several aspects of ASP programs. Then, we apply classification methods that, given the features of the instances in a training set and the solvers' performance on these instances, inductively learn algorithm selection strategies to be applied to a test set. We report the results of a number of experiments considering solvers and different training and test sets of instances taken from the ones submitted to the “System Track” of the Third ASP Competition. Our analysis shows that by applying machine learning techniques to ASP solving, it is possible to obtain very robust performance: our approach can solve more instances compared with any solver that entered the Third ASP Competition.

A very desirable Datalog extension investigated by many researchers in the last 30 years consists in allowing the use of the basic SQL aggregates min, max, count and sum in recursive rules. In this paper, we propose a simple comprehensive solution that extends the declarative least-fixpoint semantics of Horn Clauses, along with the optimization techniques used in the bottom-up implementation approach adopted by many Datalog systems. We start by identifying a large class of programs of great practical interest in which the use of min or max in recursive rules does not compromise the declarative fixpoint semantics of the programs using those rules. Then, we revisit the monotonic versions of count and sum aggregates proposed by Mazuran et al. (2013b, The VLDB Journal 22, 4, 471–493) and named, respectively, mcount and msum. Since mcount, and also msum on positive numbers, are monotonic in the lattice of set-containment, they preserve the fixpoint semantics of Horn Clauses. However, in many applications of practical interest, their use can lead to inefficiencies, that can be eliminated by combining them with max, whereby mcount and msum become the standard count and sum. Therefore, the semantics and optimization techniques of Datalog are extended to recursive programs with min, max, count and sum, making possible the advanced applications of superior performance and scalability demonstrated by BigDatalog (Shkapsky et al. 2016. In SIGMOD. ACM, 1135–1149) and Datalog-MC (Yang et al. 2017. The VLDB Journal 26, 2, 229–248).

Given an argumentation framework AF, we introduce a mapping function that constructs a disjunctive logic program P, such that the preferred extensions of AF correspond to the stable models of P, after intersecting each stable model with the relevant atoms. The given mapping function is of polynomial size w.r.t. AF.

In particular, we identify that there is a direct relationship between the minimal models of a propositional formula and the preferred extensions of an argumentation framework by working on representing the defeated arguments. Then we show how to infer the preferred extensions of an argumentation framework by using UNSAT algorithms and disjunctive stable model solvers. The relevance of this result is that we define a direct relationship between one of the most satisfactory argumentation semantics and one of the most successful approach of nonmonotonic reasoning i.e., logic programming with the stable model semantics.

This article considers the problem of reasoning on massive amounts of (possibly distributed) data. Presently, existing proposals show some limitations: (i) the quantity of data that can be handled contemporarily is limited, because reasoning is generally carried out in main-memory; (ii) the interaction with external (and independent) Database Management Systems is not trivial and, in several cases, not allowed at all; and (iii) the efficiency of present implementations is still not sufficient for their utilization in complex reasoning tasks involving massive amounts of data. This article provides a contribution in this setting; it presents a new system, called DLVDB, which aims to solve these problems. Moreover, it reports the results of a thorough experimental analysis we have carried out for comparing our system with several state-of-the-art systems (both logic and databases) on some classical deductive problems; the other tested systems are LDL++, XSB, Smodels, and three top-level commercial Database Management Systems. DLVDB significantly outperforms even the commercial database systems on recursive queries.

Most recently, Answer Set Programming (ASP) has been attracting interest as a new paradigm for problem solving. An important aspect, for which several approaches have been presented, is the handling of preferences between rules. In this paper, we consider the problem of implementing preference handling approaches by means of meta-interpreters in Answer Set Programming. In particular, we consider the preferred answer set approaches by Brewka and Eiter, by Delgrande, Schaub and Tompits, and by Wang, Zhou and Lin. We present suitable meta-interpreters for these semantics using DLV, which is an efficient engine for ASP. Moreover, we also present a meta-interpreter for the weakly preferred answer set approach by Brewka and Eiter, which uses the weak constraint feature of DLV as a tool for expressing and solving an underlying optimization problem. We also consider advanced meta-interpreters, which make use of graph-based characterizations and often allow for more efficient computations. Our approach shows the suitability of ASP in general and of DLV in particular for fast prototyping. This can be fruitfully exploited for experimenting with new languages and knowledge-representation formalisms.