Implementing Preferences with asprin

asprin offers a framework for expressing and evaluating combinations of quantitative and qualitative preferences among the stable models of a logic program. In this paper, we demonstrate the generality and flexibility of the methodology by showing how easily existing preference relations can be implemented in asprin. Moreover, we show how the computation of optimal stable models can be improved by using declarative heuristics. We empirically evaluate our contributions and contrast them with dedicated implementations. Finally, we detail key aspects of asprin’s implementation.Full Tex

Computing Diverse Optimal Stable Models

We introduce a comprehensive framework for computing diverse (or similar) solutions to logic programs with preferences. Our framework provides a wide spectrum of complete and incomplete methods for solving this task. Apart from proposing several new methods, it also accommodates existing ones and generalizes them to programs with preferences. Interestingly, this is accomplished by integrating and automating several basic ASP techniques - being of general interest even beyond diversification. The enabling factor of this lies in the recent advance of multi-shot ASP solving that provides us with fine-grained control over reasoning processes and abolishes the need for solver modifications and wrappers that were indispensable in previous approaches. Our framework is implemented as an extension to the ASP-based preference handling system asprin. We use the resulting system asprin 2 for an empirical evaluation of the diversification methods comprised in our framework

Reasoning over Assumption-Based Argumentation Frameworks via Answer Set Programming

Formal argumentation is a vibrant research area within artificial intelligence, in particular in knowledge representation and reasoning. Computational models of argumentation are divided into abstract and structured formalisms. Since its introduction in 1995, abstract argumentation, where the structure of arguments is abstracted away, has been much studied and applied. Structured argumentation formalisms, on the other hand, contain the explicit derivation of arguments. This is motivated by the importance of the construction of arguments in the application of argumentation formalisms, but also makes structured formalisms conceptually and often computationally more complex than abstract argumentation. The focus of this work is on assumption-based argumentation (ABA), a major structured formalism. Specifically we address the relative lack of efficient computational tools for reasoning in ABA compared to abstract argumentation. The computational efficiency of ABA reasoning systems has been markedly lower than the systems for abstract argumentation. In this thesis we introduce a declarative approach to reasoning in ABA via answer set programming (ASP), drawing inspiration from existing tools for abstract argumentation. In addition, we consider ABA+, a generalization of ABA that incorporates preferences into the formalism. The complexity of reasoning in ABA+ is higher than in ABA for most problems. We are able to extend our declarative approach to some ABA+ reasoning problems. We show empirically that our approach vastly outperforms previous reasoning systems for ABA and ABA+

Translating P-log, LPMLN, LPOD, and CR-Prolog2 into Standard Answer Set Programs

Answer set programming (ASP) is a particularly useful approach for nonmonotonic reasoning in knowledge representation. In order to handle quantitative and qualitative reasoning, a number of different extensions of ASP have been invented, such as quantitative extensions LP^{MLN} and P-log, and qualitative extensions LPOD, and CR-Prolog_2. Although each of these formalisms introduced some new and unique concepts, we present reductions of each of these languages into the standard ASP language, which not only gives us an alternative insight into the semantics of these extensions in terms of the standard ASP language, but also shows that the standard ASP is capable of representing quantitative uncertainty and qualitative uncertainty. What\u27s more, our translations yield a way to tune the semantics of LPOD and CR-Prolog_2. Since the semantics of each formalism is represented in ASP rules, we can modify their semantics by modifying the corresponding ASP rules. For future work, we plan to create a new formalism that is capable of representing quantitative and qualitative uncertainty at the same time. Since LPOD rules are simple and informative, we will first try to include quantitative preference into LPOD by adding the concept of weight and tune the semantics of LPOD by modifying the translated standard ASP rules

Theoretical Analysis and Implementation of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks with Domain Assignments

A representational limitation of current argumentation frameworks is their inability to deal with sets of entities and their properties, for example to express that an argument is applicable for a specific set of entities that have a certain property and not applicable for all the others. In order to address this limitation, we recently introduced Abstract Argumentation Frameworks with Domain Assignments (AAFDs), which extend Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AAFs) by assigning to each argument a domain of application, i.e., a set of entities for which the argument is believed to apply. We provided formal definitions of AAFDs and their semantics, showed with examples how this model can support various features of commonsense and non-monotonic reasoning, and studied its relation to AAFs. In this paper, aiming to provide a deeper insight into this new model, we present more results on the relation between AAFDs and AAFs and the properties of the AAFD semantics, and we introduce an alternative, more expressive way to define the domains of arguments using logical predicates. We also offer an implementation of AAFDs based on Answer Set Programming (ASP) and evaluate it using a range of experiments with synthetic datasets

Declarative Algorithms and Complexity Results for Assumption-Based Argumentation

Peer reviewe

Answer Set Programming for Qualitative Spatio-temporal Reasoning: Methods and Experiments

We study the translation of reasoning problems involving qualitative spatio-temporal calculi into answer set programming (ASP). We present various alternative transformations and provide a qualitative comparison among them. An implementation of these transformations is provided by a tool that transforms problem instances specified in the language of the Generic Qualitative Reasoner (GQR) into ASP problems. Finally, we report on an experimental analysis of solving consistency problems for Allen’s Interval Algebra and the Region Connection Calculus with eight base relations (RCC-8)