In this survey, we present an overview on (Modal) Temporal Logic Programming in view of its application to Knowledge Representation and Declarative Problem Solving. The syntax of this extension of logic programs is the result of combining usual rules with temporal modal operators, as in Linear-time Temporal Logic (LTL). In the paper, we focus on the main recent results of the non-monotonic formalism called Temporal Equilibrium Logic (TEL) that is defined for the full syntax of LTL but involves a model selection criterion based on Equilibrium Logic, a well known logical characterization of Answer Set Programming (ASP). As a result, we obtain a proper extension of the stable models semantics for the general case of temporal formulas in the syntax of LTL. We recall the basic definitions for TEL and its monotonic basis, the temporal logic of Here-and-There (THT), and study the differences between finite and infinite trace length. We also provide further useful results, such as the translation into other formalisms like Quantified Equilibrium Logic and Second-order LTL, and some techniques for computing temporal stable models based on automata constructions. In the remainder of the paper, we focus on practical aspects, defining a syntactic fragment called (modal) temporal logic programs closer to ASP, and explaining how this has been exploited in the construction of the solver telingo, a temporal extension of the well-known ASP solver clingo that uses its incremental solving capabilities.

Over the last couple of decades, there has been a considerable effort devoted to the problem of updating logic programs under the stable model semantics (a.k.a. answer-set programs) or, in other words, the problem of characterising the result of bringing up-to-date a logic program when the world it describes changes. Whereas the state-of-the-art approaches are guided by the same basic intuitions and aspirations as belief updates in the context of classical logic, they build upon fundamentally different principles and methods, which have prevented a unifying framework that could embrace both belief and rule updates. In this paper, we will overview some of the main approaches and results related to answer-set programming updates, while pointing out some of the main challenges that research in this topic has faced.

Forgetting – or variable elimination – is an operation that allows the removal, from a knowledge base, of middle variables no longer deemed relevant. In recent years, many different approaches for forgetting in Answer Set Programming have been proposed, in the form of specific operators, or classes of such operators, commonly following different principles and obeying different properties. Each such approach was developed to address some particular view on forgetting, aimed at obeying a specific set of properties deemed desirable in such view, but a comprehensive and uniform overview of all the existing operators and properties is missing. In this article, we thoroughly examine existing properties and (classes of) operators for forgetting in Answer Set Programming, drawing a complete picture of the landscape of these classes of forgetting operators, which includes many novel results on relations between properties and operators, including considerations on concrete operators to compute results of forgetting and computational complexity. Our goal is to provide guidance to help users in choosing the operator most adequate for their application requirements.

Answer set programming (ASP) emerged in the late 1990s as a paradigm for knowledge representation and reasoning. The attractiveness of ASP builds on an expressive high-level modeling language along with the availability of powerful off-the-shelf solving systems. While the utility of incorporating aggregate expressions in the modeling language has been realized almost simultaneously with the inception of the first ASP solving systems, a general semantics of aggregates and its efficient implementation have been long-standing challenges. Aggregates have been proposed and widely used in database systems, and also in the deductive database language Datalog, which is one of the main precursors of ASP. The use of aggregates was, however, still restricted in Datalog (by either disallowing recursion or only allowing monotone aggregates), while several ways to integrate unrestricted aggregates evolved in the context of ASP. In this survey, we pick up at this point of development by presenting and comparing the main aggregate semantics that have been proposed for propositional ASP programs. We highlight crucial properties such as computational complexity and expressive power, and outline the capabilities and limitations of different approaches by illustrative examples.

Constraint answer set programming or CASP, for short, is a hybrid approach in automated reasoning putting together the advances of distinct research areas such as answer set programming, constraint processing, and satisfiability modulo theories. CASP demonstrates promising results, including the development of a multitude of solvers: acsolver, clingcon, ezcsp, idp, inca, dingo, mingo, aspmt2smt, clingo[l,dl], and ezsmt. It opens new horizons for declarative programming applications such as solving complex train scheduling problems. Systems designed to find solutions to constraint answer set programs can be grouped according to their construction into, what we call, integrational or translational approaches. The focus of this paper is an overview of the key ingredients of the design of constraint answer set solvers drawing distinctions and parallels between integrational and translational approaches. The paper also provides a glimpse at the kind of programs its users develop by utilizing a CASP encoding of Traveling Salesman problem for illustration. In addition, we place the CASP technology on the map among its automated reasoning peers as well as discuss future possibilities for the development of CASP.

Answer Set Planning refers to the use of Answer Set Programming (ASP) to compute plans, that is, solutions to planning problems, that transform a given state of the world to another state. The development of efficient and scalable answer set solvers has provided a significant boost to the development of ASP-based planning systems. This paper surveys the progress made during the last two and a half decades in the area of answer set planning, from its foundations to its use in challenging planning domains. The survey explores the advantages and disadvantages of answer set planning. It also discusses typical applications of answer set planning and presents a set of challenges for future research.

Answer Set Programming, or ASP for short, has become a popular and sophisticated approach to declarative problem solving. Its popularity is due to its attractive modeling-grounding-solving workflow that provides an easy approach to problem solving, even for laypersons outside computer science. However, in contrast to ASP’s ease of use, the high degree of sophistication of the underlying technology makes it even hard for ASP experts to put ideas into practice whenever this involves modifying ASP’s machinery. For addressing this issue, this tutorial aims at enabling users to build their own ASP-based systems. More precisely, we show how the ASP system clingo can be used for extending ASP and for implementing customized special-purpose systems. To this end, we propose two alternatives. We begin with a traditional AI technique and show how metaprogramming can be used for extending ASP. This is a rather light approach that relies on clingo’s reification feature to use ASP itself for expressing new functionalities. The second part of this tutorial uses traditional programming (in Python) for manipulating clingo via its application programming interface. This approach allows for changing and controlling the entire model-ground-solve workflow of ASP. Central to this is clingo’s new Application class that allows us to draw on clingo’s infrastructure by customizing processes similar to the one in clingo. For instance, we may apply manipulations to programs’ abstract syntax trees, control various forms of multi-shot solving, and set up theory propagators for foreign inferences. A cross-sectional structure, spanning meta as well as application programming, is clingo’s intermediate format, aspif, that specifies the interface among the underlying grounder and solver. We illustrate the aforementioned concepts and techniques throughout this tutorial by means of examples and several nontrivial case studies. In particular, we show how clingo can be extended by difference constraints and how guess-and-check programming can be implemented with both meta and application programming.