Stable model semantics has become a very popular approach for the management of negation in logic programming. This approach relies mainly on the closed world assumption to complete the available knowledge and its formulation has its basis in the so-called Gelfond–Lifschitz transformation. The primary goal of this work is to present an alternative and epistemic-based characterization of stable model semantics, to the Gelfond-Lifschitz transformation. In particular, we show that stable model semantics can be defined entirely as an extension of the Kripke-Kleene semantics. Indeed, we show that the closed world assumption can be seen as an additional source of ‘falsehood’ to be added cumulatively to the Kripke-Kleene semantics. Our approach is purely algebraic and can abstract from the particular formalism of choice as it is based on monotone operators (under the knowledge order) over bilattices only.

We provide a semantic framework for preference handling in answer set programming. To this end, we introduce preference preserving consequence operators. The resulting fixpoint characterizations provide us with a uniform semantic framework for characterizing preference handling in existing approaches. Although our approach is extensible to other semantics by means of an alternating fixpoint theory, we focus here on the elaboration of preferences under answer set semantics. Alternatively, we show how these approaches can be characterized by the concept of order preservation. These uniform semantic characterizations provide us with new insights about inter-relationships and moreover about ways of implementation.

We have studied the update operator ⊕1 defined for update sequences by Eiter et al. without tautologies and we have observed that it satisfies an interesting property. This property, which we call Weak Independence of Syntax (WIS), is similar to one of the postulates proposed by Alchourrón, Gärdenfors, and Makinson (AGM); only that in this case it applies to nonmonotonic logic. In addition, we consider other five additional basic properties about update programs and we show that ⊕1 satisfies them. This work continues the analysis of the AGM postulates with respect to the ⊕1 operator under a refined view that considers N2 as a monotonic logic which allows us to expand our understanding of answer sets. Moreover, N2 helped us to derive an alternative definition of ⊕1 avoiding the use of unnecessary extra atoms.

In this paper we discuss the optimizing compilation of Constraint Handling Rules (CHRs). CHRs are a multi-headed committed choice constraint language, commonly applied for writing incremental constraint solvers. CHRs are usually implemented as a language extension that compiles to the underlying language. In this paper we show how we can use different kinds of information in the compilation of CHRs to obtain access efficiency, and a better translation of the CHR rules into the underlying language, which in this case is HAL. The kinds of information used include the types, modes, determinism, functional dependencies and symmetries of the CHR constraints. We also show how to analyze CHR programs to determine this information about functional dependencies, symmetries and other kinds of information supporting optimizations.

We present a prescriptive type system with parametric polymorphism and subtyping for constraint logic programs. The aim of this type system is to detect programming errors statically. It introduces a type discipline for constraint logic programs and modules, while maintaining the capabilities of performing the usual coercions between constraint domains, and of typing meta-programming predicates, thanks to the exibility of subtyping. The property of subject reduction expresses the consistency of a prescriptive type system w.r.t. the execution model: if a program is ‘well-typed’, then all derivations starting from a ‘well-typed’ goal are again ‘well-typed’. That property is proved w.r.t. the abstract execution model of constraint programming which proceeds by accumulation of constraints only, and w.r.t. an enriched execution model with type constraints for substitutions. We describe our implementation of the system for type checking and type inference. We report our experimental results on type checking ISO-Prolog, the (constraint) libraries of Sicstus Prolog and other Prolog programs.

A programming tactic involving polyhedra is reported that has been widely applied in the polyhedral analysis of (constraint) logic programs. The method enables the computations of convex hulls that are required for polyhedral analysis to be coded with linear constraint solving machinery that is available in many Prolog systems.

Machine clients are increasingly making use of the Web to perform tasks. While Web services traditionally mimic remote procedure calling interfaces, a new generation of so-called hypermedia APIs works through hyperlinks and forms, in a way similar to how people browse the Web. This means that existing composition techniques, which determine a procedural plan upfront, are not sufficient to consume hypermedia APIs, which need to be navigated at runtime. Clients instead need a more dynamic plan that allows them to follow hyperlinks and use forms with a preset goal. Therefore, in this paper, we show how compositions of hypermedia APIs can be created by generic Semantic Web reasoners. This is achieved through the generation of a proof based on semantic descriptions of the APIs' functionality. To pragmatically verify the applicability of compositions, we introduce the notion of pre-execution and post-execution proofs. The runtime interaction between a client and a server is guided by proofs but driven by hypermedia, allowing the client to react to the application's actual state indicated by the server's response. We describe how to generate compositions from descriptions, discuss a computer-assisted process to generate descriptions, and verify reasoner performance on various composition tasks using a benchmark suite. The experimental results lead to the conclusion that proof-based consumption of hypermedia APIs is a feasible strategy at Web scale.

The paper proposes a new knowledge representation language, called DLP<, which extends disjunctive logic programming (with strong negation) by inheritance. The addition of inheritance enhances the knowledge modeling features of the language providing a natural representation of default reasoning with exceptions. A declarative model-theoretic semantics of DLP< is provided, which is shown to generalize the Answer Set Semantics of disjunctive logic programs. The knowledge modeling features of the language are illustrated by encoding classical nonmonotonic problems in DLP<. The complexity of DLP< is analyzed, proving that inheritance does not cause any computational overhead, as reasoning in DLP< has exactly the same complexity as reasoning in disjunctive logic programming. This is confirmed by the existence of an efficient translation from DLP< to plain disjunctive logic programming. Using this translation, an advanced KR system supporting the DLP< language has been implemented on top of the DLV system and has subsequently been integrated into DLV.

We extend answer set semantics to deal with inconsistent programs (containing classical negation), by finding a “best” answer set. Within the context of inconsistent programs, it is natural to have a partial order on rules, representing a preference for satisfying certain rules, possibly at the cost of violating less important ones. We show that such a rule order induces a natural order on extended answer sets, the minimal elements of which we call preferred answer sets. We characterize the expressiveness of the resulting semantics and show that it can simulate negation as failure, disjunction and some other formalisms such as logic programs with ordered disjunction. The approach is shown to be useful in several application areas, e.g. repairing database, where minimal repairs correspond to preferred answer sets.

Answer set programming (ASP) is a well-established declarative paradigm. One of the successes of ASP is the availability of efficient systems. State-of-the-art systems are based on the ground+solve approach. In some applications, this approach is infeasible because the grounding of one or a few constraints is expensive. In this paper, we systematically compare alternative strategies to avoid the instantiation of problematic constraints, which are based on custom extensions of the solver. Results on real and synthetic benchmarks highlight some strengths and weaknesses of the different strategies.

The course timetabling problem can be generally defined as the task of assigning a number of lectures to a limited set of timeslots and rooms, subject to a given set of hard and soft constraints. The modeling language for course timetabling is required to be expressive enough to specify a wide variety of soft constraints and objective functions. Furthermore, the resulting encoding is required to be extensible for capturing new constraints and for switching them between hard and soft, and to be flexible enough to deal with different formulations. In this paper, we propose to make effective use of ASP as a modeling language for course timetabling. We show that our ASP-based approach can naturally satisfy the above requirements, through an ASP encoding of the curriculum-based course timetabling problem proposed in the third track of the second international timetabling competition (ITC-2007). Our encoding is compact and human-readable, since each constraint is individually expressed by either one or two rules. Each hard constraint is expressed by using integrity constraints and aggregates of ASP. Each soft constraint S is expressed by rules in which the head is the form of penalty(S,V,C), and a violation V and its penalty cost C are detected and calculated respectively in the body. We carried out experiments on four different benchmark sets with five different formulations. We succeeded either in improving the bounds or producing the same bounds for many combinations of problem instances and formulations, compared with the previous best known bounds.

In this paper we propose a use-case-driven iterative design methodology for normative frameworks, also called virtual institutions, which are used to govern open systems. Our computational model represents the normative framework as a logic program under answer set semantics (ASP). By means of an inductive logic programming approach, implemented using ASP, it is possible to synthesise new rules and revise the existing ones. The learning mechanism is guided by the designer who describes the desired properties of the framework through use cases, comprising (i) event traces that capture possible scenarios, and (ii) a state that describes the desired outcome. The learning process then proposes additional rules, or changes to current rules, to satisfy the constraints expressed in the use cases. Thus, the contribution of this paper is a process for the elaboration and revision of a normative framework by means of a semi-automatic and iterative process driven from specifications of (un)desirable behaviour. The process integrates a novel and general methodology for theory revision based on ASP.

We present a solution to real-world train scheduling problems, involving routing, scheduling, and optimization, based on Answer Set Programming (ASP). To this end, we pursue a hybrid approach that extends ASP with difference constraints to account for a fine-grained timing. More precisely, we exemplarily show how the hybrid ASP system clingo[DL] can be used to tackle demanding planning and scheduling problems. In particular, we investigate how to boost performance by combining distinct ASP solving techniques, such as approximations and heuristics, with preprocessing and encoding techniques for tackling large-scale, real-world train-scheduling instances.

In this paper, we propose a new language, called AR (Action Rules), and describe how various propagators for finite-domain constraints can be implemented in it. An action rule specifies a pattern for agents, an action that the agents can carry out, and an event pattern for events that can activate the agents. AR combines the goal-oriented execution model of logic programming with the event-driven execution model. This hybrid execution model facilitates programming constraint propagators. A propagator for a constraint is an agent that maintains the consistency of the constraint and is activated by the updates of the domain variables in the constraint. AR has a much stronger descriptive power than indexicals, the language widely used in the current finite-domain constraint systems, and is flexible for implementing not only interval-consistency but also arc-consistency algorithms. As examples, we present a weak arc-consistency propagator for the all_distinct constraint and a hybrid algorithm for n-ary linear equality constraints. B-Prolog has been extended to accommodate action rules. Benchmarking shows that B-Prolog as a CLP(FD) system significantly outperforms other CLP(FD) systems.

We present a method for verifying the correctness of imperative programs which is based on the automated transformation of their specifications. Given a program prog, we consider a partial correctness specification of the form {ϕ}, prog {ψ}, where the assertions ϕ and ψ are predicates defined by a set Spec of possibly recursive Horn clauses with linear arithmetic (LA) constraints in their premise (also called constrained Horn clauses). The verification method consists in constructing a set PC of constrained Horn clauses whose satisfiability implies that {ϕ}, prog, {ψ} is valid. We highlight some limitations of state-of-the-art constrained Horn clause solving methods, here called LA-solving methods, which prove the satisfiability of the clauses by looking for linear arithmetic interpretations of the predicates. In particular, we prove that there exist some specifications that cannot be proved valid by any of those LA-solving methods. These specifications require the proof of satisfiability of a set PC of constrained Horn clauses that contain nonlinear clauses (that is, clauses with more than one atom in their premise). Then, we present a transformation, called linearization, that converts PC into a set of linear clauses (that is, clauses with at most one atom in their premise). We show that several specifications that could not be proved valid by LA-solving methods, can be proved valid after linearization. We also present a strategy for performing linearization in an automatic way and we report on some experimental results obtained by using a preliminary implementation of our method.

Proposing relevant perturbations to biological signaling networks is central to many problems in biology and medicine because it allows for enabling or disabling certain biological outcomes. In contrast to quantitative methods that permit fine-grained (kinetic) analysis, qualitative approaches allow for addressing large-scale networks. This is accomplished by more abstract representations such as logical networks. We elaborate upon such a qualitative approach aiming at the computation of minimal interventions in logical signaling networks relying on Kleene's three-valued logic and fixpoint semantics. We address this problem within answer set programming and show that it greatly outperforms previous work using dedicated algorithms.

Boolean functions can be used to express the groundness of, and trace grounding dependencies between, program variables in (constraint) logic programs. In this paper, a variety of issues pertaining to the efficient Prolog implementation of groundness analysis are investigated, focusing on the domain of definite Boolean functions, Def. The systematic design of the representation of an abstract domain is discussed in relation to its impact on the algorithmic complexity of the domain operations; the most frequently called operations should be the most lightweight. This methodology is applied to Def, resulting in a new representation, together with new algorithms for its domain operations utilising previously unexploited properties of Def – for instance, quadratic-time entailment checking. The iteration strategy driving the analysis is also discussed and a simple, but very effective, optimisation of induced magic is described. The analysis can be implemented straightforwardly in Prolog and the use of a non-ground representation results in an efficient, scalable tool which does not require widening to be invoked, even on the largest benchmarks. An extensive experimental evaluation is given.

GNU Prolog is a general-purpose implementation of the Prolog language, which distinguishes itself from most other systems by being, above all else, a native-code compiler which produces stand-alone executables which do not rely on any bytecode emulator or meta-interpreter. Other aspects which stand out include the explicit organization of the Prolog system as a multipass compiler, where intermediate representations are materialized, in Unix compiler tradition. GNU Prolog also includes an extensible and high-performance finite-domain constraint solver, integrated with the Prolog language but implemented using independent lower-level mechanisms. This paper discusses the main issues involved in designing and implementing GNU Prolog: requirements, system organization, performance, and portability issues as well as its position with respect to other Prolog system implementations and the ISO standardization initiative.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a well-known problem solving approach based on nonmonotonic logic programs and efficient solvers. To enable access to external information, hex-programs extend programs with external atoms, which allow for a bidirectional communication between the logic program and external sources of computation (e.g., description logic reasoners and Web resources). Current solvers evaluate hex-programs by a translation to ASP itself, in which values of external atoms are guessed and verified after the ordinary answer set computation. This elegant approach does not scale with the number of external accesses in general, in particular in presence of nondeterminism (which is instrumental for ASP). In this paper, we present a novel, native algorithm for evaluating hex-programs which uses learning techniques. In particular, we extend conflict-driven ASP solving techniques, which prevent the solver from running into the same conflict again, from ordinary to hex-programs. We show how to gain additional knowledge from external source evaluations and how to use it in a conflict-driven algorithm. We first target the uninformed case, i.e., when we have no extra information on external sources, and then extend our approach to the case where additional meta-information is available. Experiments show that learning from external sources can significantly decrease both the runtime and the number of considered candidate compatible sets.