Modular Logic Programming: Full Compositionality and Conflict Handling for Practical Reasoning

With the recent development of a new ubiquitous nature of data and the profusity of available knowledge, there is nowadays the need to reason from multiple sources of often incomplete and uncertain knowledge. Our goal was to provide a way to combine declarative knowledge bases – represented as logic programming modules under the answer set semantics – as well as the individual results one already inferred from them, without having to recalculate the results for their composition and without having to explicitly know the original logic programming encodings that produced such results. This posed us many challenges such as how to deal with fundamental problems of modular frameworks for logic programming, namely how to define a general compositional semantics that allows us to compose unrestricted modules. Building upon existing logic programming approaches, we devised a framework capable of composing generic logic programming modules while preserving the crucial property of compositionality, which informally means that the combination of models of individual modules are the models of the union of modules. We are also still able to reason in the presence of knowledge containing incoherencies, which is informally characterised by a logic program that does not have an answer set due to cyclic dependencies of an atom from its default negation. In this thesis we also discuss how the same approach can be extended to deal with probabilistic knowledge in a modular and compositional way. We depart from the Modular Logic Programming approach in Oikarinen & Janhunen (2008); Janhunen et al. (2009) which achieved a restricted form of compositionality of answer set programming modules. We aim at generalising this framework of modular logic programming and start by lifting restrictive conditions that were originally imposed, and use alternative ways of combining these (so called by us) Generalised Modular Logic Programs. We then deal with conflicts arising in generalised modular logic programming and provide modular justifications and debugging for the generalised modular logic programming setting, where justification models answer the question: Why is a given interpretation indeed an Answer Set? and Debugging models answer the question: Why is a given interpretation not an Answer Set? In summary, our research deals with the problematic of formally devising a generic modular logic programming framework, providing: operators for combining arbitrary modular logic programs together with a compositional semantics; We characterise conflicts that occur when composing access control policies, which are generalisable to our context of generalised modular logic programming, and ways of dealing with them syntactically: provided a unification for justification and debugging of logic programs; and semantically: provide a new semantics capable of dealing with incoherences. We also provide an extension of modular logic programming to a probabilistic setting. These goals are already covered with published work. A prototypical tool implementing the unification of justifications and debugging is available for download from http://cptkirk.sourceforge.net

Justifications and Blocking Sets in a Rule-Based Answer Set Computation

Notions of justifications for logic programs under answer set semantics have been recently studied for atom-based approaches or argumentation approaches. The paper addresses the question in a rule-based answer set computation: the search algorithm does not guess on the truth or falsity of an atom but on the application or non application of a non monotonic rule. In this view, justifications are sets of ground rules with particular properties. Properties of these justifications are established; in particular the notion of blocking set (a reason incompatible with an answer set) is defined, that permits to explain computation failures. Backjumping, learning, debugging and explanations are possible applications

Transforming floundering into success

We show how logic programs with "delays" can be transformed to programs without delays in a way which preserves information concerning floundering (also known as deadlock). This allows a declarative (model-theoretic), bottom-up or goal independent approach to be used for analysis and debugging of properties related to floundering. We rely on some previously introduced restrictions on delay primitives and a key observation which allows properties such as groundness to be analysed by approximating the (ground) success set. This paper is to appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP). Keywords: Floundering, delays, coroutining, program analysis, abstract interpretation, program transformation, declarative debuggingComment: Number of pages: 24 Number of figures: 9 Number of tables: non

Data Provenance Inference in Logic Programming: Reducing Effort of Instance-driven Debugging

Data provenance allows scientists in different domains validating their models and algorithms to find out anomalies and unexpected behaviors. In previous works, we described on-the-fly interpretation of (Python) scripts to build workflow provenance graph automatically and then infer fine-grained provenance information based on the workflow provenance graph and the availability of data. To broaden the scope of our approach and demonstrate its viability, in this paper we extend it beyond procedural languages, to be used for purely declarative languages such as logic programming under the stable model semantics. For experiments and validation, we use the Answer Set Programming solver oClingo, which makes it possible to formulate and solve stream reasoning problems in a purely declarative fashion. We demonstrate how the benefits of the provenance inference over the explicit provenance still holds in a declarative setting, and we briefly discuss the potential impact for declarative programming, in particular for instance-driven debugging of the model in declarative problem solving

Correctness and completeness of logic programs

We discuss proving correctness and completeness of definite clause logic programs. We propose a method for proving completeness, while for proving correctness we employ a method which should be well known but is often neglected. Also, we show how to prove completeness and correctness in the presence of SLD-tree pruning, and point out that approximate specifications simplify specifications and proofs. We compare the proof methods to declarative diagnosis (algorithmic debugging), showing that approximate specifications eliminate a major drawback of the latter. We argue that our proof methods reflect natural declarative thinking about programs, and that they can be used, formally or informally, in every-day programming.Comment: 29 pages, 2 figures; with editorial modifications, small corrections and extensions. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1411.3015. Overlaps explained in "Related Work" (p. 21