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.

We present a formulation of the problem of probabilistic model checking as one of query evaluation over probabilistic logic programs. To the best of our knowledge, our formulation is the first of its kind, and it covers a rich class of probabilistic models and probabilistic temporal logics. The inference algorithms of existing probabilistic logic-programming systems are well defined only for queries with a finite number of explanations. This restriction prohibits the encoding of probabilistic model checkers, where explanations correspond to executions of the system being model checked. To overcome this restriction, we propose a more general inference algorithm that uses finite generative structures (similar to automata) to represent families of explanations. The inference algorithm computes the probability of a possibly infinite set of explanations directly from the finite generative structure. We have implemented our inference algorithm in XSB Prolog, and use this implementation to encode probabilistic model checkers for a variety of temporal logics, including PCTL and GPL (which subsumes PCTL*). Our experiment results show that, despite the highly declarative nature of their encodings, the model checkers constructed in this manner are competitive with their native implementations.

Datalog is one of the best-known rule-based languages, and extensions of it are used in a wide context of applications. An important Datalog extension is Disjunctive Datalog, which significantly increases the expressivity of the basic language. Disjunctive Datalog is useful in a wide range of applications, ranging from Databases (e.g., Data Integration) to Artificial Intelligence (e.g., diagnosis and planning under incomplete knowledge). However, in recent years an important shortcoming of Datalog-based languages became evident, e.g. in the context of data-integration (consistent query-answering, ontology-based data access) and Semantic Web applications: The language does not permit any generation of and reasoning with unnamed individuals in an obvious way. In general, it is weak in supporting many cases of existential quantification. To overcome this problem, Datalog∃ has recently been proposed, which extends traditional Datalog by existential quantification in rule heads. In this work, we propose a natural extension of Disjunctive Datalog and Datalog∃, called Datalog∃,˅, which allows both disjunctions and existential quantification in rule heads and is therefore an attractive language for knowledge representation and reasoning, especially in domains where ontology-based reasoning is needed. We formally define syntax and semantics of the language Datalog∃,˅, and provide a notion of instantiation, which we prove to be adequate for Datalog∃,˅. A main issue of Datalog∃ and hence also of Datalog∃,˅ is that decidability is no longer guaranteed for typical reasoning tasks. In order to address this issue, we identify many decidable fragments of the language, which extend, in a natural way, analog classes defined in the non-disjunctive case. Moreover, we carry out an in-depth complexity analysis, deriving interesting results which range from Logarithmic Space to Exponential Time.

The module theorem by Janhunen et al. demonstrates how to provide a modular structure in answer set programming, where each module has a well-defined input/output interface which can be used to establish the compositionality of answer sets. The theorem is useful in the analysis of answer set programs, and is a basis of incremental grounding and reactive answer set programming. We extend the module theorem to the general theory of stable models by Ferraris et al. The generalization applies to non-ground logic programs allowing useful constructs in answer set programming, such as choice rules, the count aggregate, and nested expressions. Our extension is based on relating the module theorem to the symmetric splitting theorem by Ferraris et al. Based on this result, we reformulate and extend the theory of incremental answer set computation to a more general class of programs.

Confluence is a fundamental property of Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) since, as in other rewriting formalisms, it guarantees that the computations are not dependent on rule application order, and also because it implies the logical consistency of the program declarative view. In this paper we are concerned with proving the confluence of non-terminating CHR programs. For this purpose, we derive from van Oostrom's decreasing diagrams method a novel criterion on CHR critical pairs that generalizes all preexisting criteria. We subsequently improve on a result on the modularity of CHR confluence, which permits modular combinations of possibly non-terminating confluent programs, without loss of confluence.

We present and evaluate a compiler from Prolog (and extensions) to JavaScript which makes it possible to use (constraint) logic programming to develop the client side of web applications while being compliant with current industry standards. Targeting JavaScript makes (C)LP programs executable in virtually every modern computing device with no additional software requirements from the point of view of the user. In turn, the use of a very high-level language facilitates the development of high-quality, complex software. The compiler is a back end of the Ciao system and supports most of its features, including its module system and its rich language extension mechanism based on packages. We present an overview of the compilation process and a detailed description of the run-time system, including the support for modular compilation into separate JavaScript code. We demonstrate the maturity of the compiler by testing it with complex code such as a CLP(FD) library written in Prolog with attributed variables. Finally, we validate our proposal by measuring the performance of some LP and CLP(FD) benchmarks running on top of major JavaScript engines.

Our broader goal is to automatically translate English sentences into formulas in appropriate knowledge representation languages as a step towards understanding and thus answering questions with respect to English text. Our focus in this paper is on the language of Answer Set Programming (ASP). Our approach to translate sentences to ASP rules is inspired by Montague's use of lambda calculus formulas as meaning of words and phrases. With ASP as the target language the meaning of words and phrases are ASP-lambda formulas. In an earlier work we illustrated our approach by manually developing a dictionary of words and their ASP-lambda formulas. However such an approach is not scalable. In this paper our focus is on two algorithms that allow one to construct ASP-lambda formulas in an inverse manner. In particular the two algorithms take as input two lambda-calculus expressions G and H and compute a lambda-calculus expression F such that F with input as G, denoted by F@G, is equal to H; and similarly G@F = H. We present correctness and complexity results about these algorithms. To do that we develop the notion of typed ASP-lambda calculus theories and their orders and use it in developing the completeness results.

We address the relative expressiveness of defeasible logics in the framework DL. Relative expressiveness is formulated as the ability to simulate the reasoning of one logic within another logic. We show that such simulations must be modular, in the sense that they also work if applied only to part of a theory, in order to achieve a useful notion of relative expressiveness. We present simulations showing that logics in DL with and without the capability of team defeat are equally expressive. We also show that logics that handle ambiguity differently – ambiguity blocking versus ambiguity propagating – have distinct expressiveness, with neither able to simulate the other under a different formulation of expressiveness.