Bart Bogaerts

Emilio Gamba, Bart Bogaerts, Tias Guns

We build on a recently proposed method for stepwise explaining solutions of Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSP) in a human-understandable way. An explanation here is a sequence of simple inference steps where simplicity is quantified using a cost function. The algorithms for explanation generation rely on extracting Minimal Unsatisfiable Subsets (MUS) of a derived unsatisfiable formula, exploiting a one-to-one correspondence between so-called non-redundant explanations and MUSs. However, MUS extraction algorithms do not provide any guarantee of subset minimality or optimality with respect to a given cost function. Therefore, we build on these formal foundations and tackle the main points of improvement, namely how to generate explanations efficiently that are provably optimal (with respect to the given cost metric). For that, we developed (1) a hitting set-based algorithm for finding the optimal constrained unsatisfiable subsets; (2) a method for re-using relevant information over multiple algorithm calls; and (3) methods exploiting domain-specific information to speed up the explanation sequence generation. We experimentally validated our algorithms on a large number of CSP problems. We found that our algorithms outperform the MUS approach in terms of explanation quality and computational time (on average up to 56 % faster than a standard MUS approach).

Bart Bogaerts, Stephan Gocht, Ciaran McCreesh et al.

Symmetry and dominance breaking can be crucial for solving hard combinatorial search and optimisation problems, but the correctness of these techniques sometimes relies on subtle arguments. For this reason, it is desirable to produce efficient, machine-verifiable certificates that solutions have been computed correctly. Building on the cutting planes proof system, we develop a certification method for optimisation problems in which symmetry and dominance breaking are easily expressible. Our experimental evaluation demonstrates that we can efficiently verify fully general symmetry breaking in Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solving, thus providing, for the first time, a unified method to certify a range of advanced SAT techniques that also includes XOR and cardinality reasoning. In addition, we apply our method to maximum clique solving and constraint programming as a proof of concept that the approach applies to a wider range of combinatorial problems.

Simon Marynissen, Jesse Heyninck, Bart Bogaerts et al.

Justification theory is a general framework for the definition of semantics of rule-based languages that has a high explanatory potential. Nested justification systems, first introduced by Denecker et al. (2015), allow for the composition of justification systems. This notion of nesting thus enables the modular definition of semantics of rule-based languages, and increases the representational capacities of justification theory. As we show in this paper, the original semantics for nested justification systems lead to the loss of information relevant for explanations. In view of this problem, we provide an alternative characterization of semantics of nested justification systems and show that this characterization is equivalent to the original semantics. Furthermore, we show how nested justification systems allow representing fixpoint definitions (Hou and Denecker 2009).

Jesse Heyninck, Ofer Arieli, Bart Bogaerts

Approximation fixpoint theory (AFT) is an abstract and general algebraic framework for studying the semantics of nonmonotonic logics. It provides a unifying study of the semantics of different formalisms for nonmonotonic reasoning, such as logic programming, default logic and autoepistemic logic. In this paper, we extend AFT to dealing with non-deterministic constructs that allow to handle indefinite information, represented e.g. by disjunctive formulas. This is done by generalizing the main constructions and corresponding results of AFT to non-deterministic operators, whose ranges are sets of elements rather than single elements. The applicability and usefulness of this generalization is illustrated in the context of disjunctive logic programming.

Pierre Carbonnelle, Gottfried Schenner, Maurice Bruynooghe et al.

We analyze how symmetries can be used to compress structures (also known as interpretations) onto a smaller domain without loss of information. This analysis suggests the possibility to solve satisfiability problems in the compressed domain for better performance. Thus, we propose a 2-step novel method: (i) the sentence to be satisfied is automatically translated into an equisatisfiable sentence over a ``lifted'' vocabulary that allows domain compression; (ii) satisfiability of the lifted sentence is checked by growing the (initially unknown) compressed domain until a satisfying structure is found. The key issue is to ensure that this satisfying structure can always be expanded into an uncompressed structure that satisfies the original sentence to be satisfied. We present an adequate translation for sentences in typed first-order logic extended with aggregates. Our experimental evaluation shows large speedups for generative configuration problems. The method also has applications in the verification of software operating on complex data structures. Our results justify further research in automatic translation of sentences for symmetry reduction.

Bart Bogaerts, Bas Ketsman, Younes Zeboudj et al.

Link Traversal-based Query Processing (ltqp), in which a sparql query is evaluated over a web of documents rather than a single dataset, is often seen as a theoretically interesting yet impractical technique. However, in a time where the hypercentralization of data has increasingly come under scrutiny, a decentralized Web of Data with a simple document-based interface is appealing, as it enables data publishers to control their data and access rights. While ltqp allows evaluating complex queries over such webs, it suffers from performance issues (due to the high number of documents containing data) as well as information quality concerns (due to the many sources providing such documents). In existing ltqp approaches, the burden of finding sources to query is entirely in the hands of the data consumer. In this paper, we argue that to solve these issues, data publishers should also be able to suggest sources of interest and guide the data consumer towards relevant and trustworthy data. We introduce a theoretical framework that enables such guided link traversal and study its properties. We illustrate with a theoretic example that this can improve query results and reduce the number of network requests. We evaluate our proposal experimentally on a virtual linked web with specifications and indeed observe that not just the data quality but also the efficiency of querying improves. Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).

Marco Foschini, Marianne Defresne, Emilio Gamba et al.

Step-wise explanations can explain logic puzzles and other satisfaction problems by showing how to derive decisions step by step. Each step consists of a set of constraints that derive an assignment to one or more decision variables. However, many candidate explanation steps exist, with different sets of constraints and different decisions they derive. To identify the most comprehensible one, a user-defined objective function is required to quantify the quality of each step. However, defining a good objective function is challenging. Here, interactive preference elicitation methods from the wider machine learning community can offer a way to learn user preferences from pairwise comparisons. We investigate the feasibility of this approach for step-wise explanations and address several limitations that distinguish it from elicitation for standard combinatorial problems. First, because the explanation quality is measured using multiple sub-objectives that can vary a lot in scale, we propose two dynamic normalization techniques to rescale these features and stabilize the learning process. We also observed that many generated comparisons involve similar explanations. For this reason, we introduce MACHOP (Multi-Armed CHOice Perceptron), a novel query generation strategy that integrates non-domination constraints with upper confidence bound-based diversification. We evaluate the elicitation techniques on Sudokus and Logic-Grid puzzles using artificial users, and validate them with a real-user evaluation. In both settings, MACHOP consistently produces higher-quality explanations than the standard approach.

Ignace Bleukx, Maarten Flippo, Bart Bogaerts et al.

In the field of Explainable Constraint Solving, it is common to explain to a user why a problem is unsatisfiable. A recently proposed method for this is to compute a sequence of explanation steps. Such a step-wise explanation shows individual reasoning steps involving constraints from the original specification, that in the end explain a conflict. However, computing a step-wise explanation is computationally expensive, limiting the scope of problems for which it can be used. We investigate how we can use proofs generated by a constraint solver as a starting point for computing step-wise explanations, instead of computing them step-by-step. More specifically, we define a framework of abstract proofs, in which both proofs and step-wise explanations can be represented. We then propose several methods for converting a proof to a step-wise explanation sequence, with special attention to trimming and simplification techniques to keep the sequence and its individual steps small. Our results show our method significantly speeds up the generation of step-wise explanation sequences, while the resulting step-wise explanation has a quality similar to the current state-of-the-art.

Bart Bogaerts, Angelos Charalambidis, Giannos Chatziagapis et al.

We propose a stable model semantics for higher-order logic programs. Our semantics is developed using Approximation Fixpoint Theory (AFT), a powerful formalism that has successfully been used to give meaning to diverse non-monotonic formalisms. The proposed semantics generalizes the classical two-valued stable model semantics of (Gelfond and Lifschitz 1988) as-well-as the three-valued one of (Przymusinski 1990), retaining their desirable properties. Due to the use of AFT, we also get for free alternative semantics for higher-order logic programs, namely supported model, Kripke-Kleene, and well-founded. Additionally, we define a broad class of stratified higher-order logic programs and demonstrate that they have a unique two-valued higher-order stable model which coincides with the well-founded semantics of such programs. We provide a number of examples in different application domains, which demonstrate that higher-order logic programming under the stable model semantics is a powerful and versatile formalism, which can potentially form the basis of novel ASP systems.

Simon Marynissen, Bart Bogaerts

Justification theory is an abstract unifying formalism that captures semantics of various non-monotonic logics. One intriguing problem that has received significant attention is the consistency problem: under which conditions are justifications for a fact and justifications for its negation suitably related. Two variants of justification theory exist: one in which justifications are trees and one in which they are graphs. In this work we resolve the consistency problem once and for all for the tree-like setting by showing that all reasonable tree-like justification systems are consistent.

Christoph Jabs, Jeremias Berg, Bart Bogaerts et al.

Due to the wide employment of automated reasoning in the analysis and construction of correct systems, the results reported by automated reasoning engines must be trustworthy. For Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solvers - and more recently SAT-based maximum satisfiability (MaxSAT) solvers - trustworthiness is obtained by integrating proof logging into solvers, making solvers capable of emitting machine-verifiable proofs to certify correctness of the reasoning steps performed. In this work, we enable for the first time proof logging based on the VeriPB proof format for multi-objective MaxSAT (MO-MaxSAT) optimization techniques. Although VeriPB does not offer direct support for multi-objective problems, we detail how preorders in VeriPB can be used to provide certificates for MO-MaxSAT algorithms computing a representative solution for each element in the non-dominated set of the search space under Pareto-optimality, without extending the VeriPB format or the proof checker. By implementing VeriPB proof logging into a state-of-the-art multi-objective MaxSAT solver, we show empirically that proof logging can be made scalable for MO-MaxSAT with reasonable overhead.

Markus Anders, Bart Bogaerts, Benjamin Bogø et al.

Symmetry breaking is a crucial technique in modern combinatorial solving, but it is difficult to be sure it is implemented correctly. The most successful approach to deal with bugs is to make solvers certifying, so that they output not just a solution, but also a mathematical proof of correctness in a standard format, which can then be checked by a formally verified checker. This requires justifying symmetry reasoning within the proof, but developing efficient methods for this has remained a long-standing open challenge. A fully general approach was recently proposed by Bogaerts et al. (2023), but it relies on encoding lexicographic orders with big integers, which quickly becomes infeasible for large symmetries. In this work, we develop a method for instead encoding orders with auxiliary variables. We show that this leads to orders-of-magnitude speed-ups in both theory and practice by running experiments on proof logging and checking for SAT symmetry breaking using the state-of-the-art satsuma symmetry breaker and the VeriPB proof checking toolchain.

Hannes Ihalainen, Dieter Vandesande, André Schidler et al.

The implicit hitting set (IHS) approach offers a general framework for solving computationally hard combinatorial optimization problems declaratively. IHS iterates between a decision oracle used for extracting sources of inconsistency and an optimizer for computing so-called hitting sets (HSs) over the accumulated sources of inconsistency. While the decision oracle is language-specific, the optimizers is usually instantiated through integer programming. We explore alternative algorithmic techniques for hitting set optimization based on different ways of employing pseudo-Boolean (PB) reasoning as well as stochastic local search. We extensively evaluate the practical feasibility of the alternatives in particular in the context of pseudo-Boolean (0-1 IP) optimization as one of the most recent instantiations of IHS. Highlighting a trade-off between efficiency and reliability, while a commercial IP solver turns out to remain the most effective way to instantiate HS computations, it can cause correctness issues due to numerical instability; in fact, we show that exact HS computations instantiated via PB reasoning can be made competitive with a numerically exact IP solver. Furthermore, the use of PB reasoning as a basis for HS computations allows for obtaining certificates for the correctness of IHS computations, generally applicable to any IHS instantiation in which reasoning in the declarative language at hand can be captured in the PB-based proof format we employ.

Linde Vanbesien, Bart Bogaerts, Marc Denecker

Approximation Fixpoint Theory (AFT) is a powerful theory covering various semantics of non-monotonic reasoning formalisms in knowledge representation such as Logic Programming and Answer Set Programming. Many semantics of such non-monotonic formalisms can be characterized as suitable fixpoints of a non-monotonic operator on a suitable lattice. Instead of working on the original lattice, AFT operates on intervals in such lattice to approximate or construct the fixpoints of interest. While AFT has been applied successfully across a broad range of non-monotonic reasoning formalisms, it is confronted by its limitations in other, relatively simple, examples. In this paper, we overcome those limitations by extending consistent AFT to deal with approximations that are more refined than intervals. Therefore, we introduce a more general notion of approximation spaces, showcase the improved expressiveness and investigate relations between different approximation spaces.

Ignace Bleukx, Hélène Verhaeghe, Bart Bogaerts et al.

In eXplainable Constraint Solving (XCS), it is common to extract a Minimal Unsatisfiable Subset (MUS) from a set of unsatisfiable constraints. This helps explain to a user why a constraint specification does not admit a solution. Finding MUSes can be computationally expensive for highly symmetric problems, as many combinations of constraints need to be considered. In the traditional context of solving satisfaction problems, symmetry has been well studied, and effective ways to detect and exploit symmetries during the search exist. However, in the setting of finding MUSes of unsatisfiable constraint programs, symmetries are understudied. In this paper, we take inspiration from existing symmetry-handling techniques and adapt well-known MUS-computation methods to exploit symmetries in the specification, speeding-up overall computation time. Our results display a significant reduction of runtime for our adapted algorithms compared to the baseline on symmetric problems.

Pierre Carbonnelle, Joost Vennekens, Bart Bogaerts et al.

Many practical problems can be understood as the search for a state of affairs that extends a fixed partial state of affairs, the \emph{environment}, while satisfying certain conditions that are formally specified. Such problems are found in, e.g., engineering, law or economics. We study this class of problems in a context where some of the relevant information about the environment is not known by the user at the start of the search. During the search, the user may consider tentative solutions that make implicit hypotheses about these unknowns. To ensure that the solution is appropriate, these hypotheses must be verified by observing the environment. Furthermore, we assume that, in addition to knowledge of what constitutes a solution, knowledge of general laws of the environment is also present. We formally define partial solutions with enough verified facts to guarantee the existence of complete and appropriate solutions. Additionally, we propose an interactive system to assist the user in their search by determining 1) which hypotheses implicit in a tentative solution must be verified in the environment, and 2) which observations can bring useful information for the search. We present an efficient method to over-approximate the set of relevant information, and evaluate our implementation.

Jesse Heyninck, Bart Bogaerts

Approximation fixpoint theory (AFT) is an abstract and general algebraic framework for studying the semantics of non-monotonic logics. In recent work, AFT was generalized to non-deterministic operators, i.e.\ operators whose range are sets of elements rather than single elements. In this paper, we make three further contributions to non-deterministic AFT: (1) we define and study ultimate approximations of non-deterministic operators, (2) we give an algebraic formulation of the semi-equilibrium semantics by Amendola, et al., and (3) we generalize the characterisations of disjunctive logic programs to disjunctive logic programs with aggregates.

Bart Bogaerts, Maxime Jakubowski

SHACL is a W3C-proposed language for expressing structural constraints on RDF graphs. The recommendation only specifies semantics for non-recursive SHACL; recently, some efforts have been made to allow recursive SHACL schemas. In this paper, we argue that for defining and studying semantics of recursive SHACL, lessons can be learned from years of research in non-monotonic reasoning. We show that from a SHACL schema, a three-valued semantic operator can directly be obtained. Building on Approximation Fixpoint Theory (AFT), this operator immediately induces a wide variety of semantics, including a supported, stable, and well-founded semantics, related in the expected ways. By building on AFT, a rich body of theoretical results becomes directly available for SHACL. As such, the main contribution of this short paper is providing theoretical foundations for the study of recursive SHACL, which can later enable an informed decision for an extension of the W3C recommendation.

Andrea Formisano, Yanhong Annie Liu, Bart Bogaerts et al.

ICLP is the premier international event for presenting research in logic programming. Contributions to ICLP 2021 were sought in all areas of logic programming, including but not limited to: Foundations: Semantics, Formalisms, Nonmonotonic reasoning, Knowledge representation. Languages issues: Concurrency, Objects, Coordination, Mobility, Higher order, Types, Modes, Assertions, Modules, Meta-programming, Logic-based domain-specific languages, Programming techniques. Programming support: Program analysis, Transformation, Validation, Verification, Debugging, Profiling, Testing, Execution visualization. Implementation: Compilation, Virtual machines, Memory management, Parallel and Distributed execution, Constraint handling rules, Tabling, Foreign interfaces, User interfaces. Related Paradigms and Synergies: Inductive and coinductive logic programming, Constraint logic programming, Answer set programming, Interaction with SAT, SMT and CSP solvers, Theorem proving, Argumentation, Probabilistic programming, Machine learning. Applications: Databases, Big data, Data integration and federation, Software engineering, Natural language processing, Web and semantic web, Agents, Artificial intelligence, Computational life sciences, Cyber-security, Robotics, Education.

Emilio Gamba, Bart Bogaerts, Tias Guns

We build on a recently proposed method for explaining solutions of constraint satisfaction problems. An explanation here is a sequence of simple inference steps, where the simplicity of an inference step is measured by the number and types of constraints and facts used, and where the sequence explains all logical consequences of the problem. We build on these formal foundations and tackle two emerging questions, namely how to generate explanations that are provably optimal (with respect to the given cost metric) and how to generate them efficiently. To answer these questions, we develop 1) an implicit hitting set algorithm for finding optimal unsatisfiable subsets; 2) a method to reduce multiple calls for (optimal) unsatisfiable subsets to a single call that takes constraints on the subset into account, and 3) a method for re-using relevant information over multiple calls to these algorithms. The method is also applicable to other problems that require finding cost-optimal unsatiable subsets. We specifically show that this approach can be used to effectively find sequences of optimal explanation steps for constraint satisfaction problems like logic grid puzzles.

Wolf De Wulf, Bart Bogaerts

Answer set programming (ASP) is a well-established knowledge representation formalism. Most ASP solvers are based on (extensions of) technology from Boolean satisfiability solving. While these solvers have shown to be very successful in many practical applications, their strength is limited by their underlying proof system, resolution. In this paper, we present a new tool LP2PB that translates ASP programs into pseudo-Boolean theories, for which solvers based on the (stronger) cutting plane proof system exist. We evaluate our tool, and the potential of cutting-plane-based solving for ASP on traditional ASP benchmarks as well as benchmarks from pseudo-Boolean solving. Our results are mixed: overall, traditional ASP solvers still outperform our translational approach, but several benchmark families are identified where the balance shifts the other way, thereby suggesting that further investigation into a stronger proof system for ASP is valuable.

Simon Marynissen, Bart Bogaerts, Marc Denecker

Justification theory is a unifying semantic framework. While it has its roots in non-monotonic logics, it can be applied to various areas in computer science, especially in explainable reasoning; its most central concept is a justification: an explanation why a property holds (or does not hold) in a model. In this paper, we continue the study of justification theory by means of three major contributions. The first is studying the relation between justification theory and game theory. We show that justification frameworks can be seen as a special type of games. The established connection provides the theoretical foundations for our next two contributions. The second contribution is studying under which condition two different dialects of justification theory (graphs as explanations vs trees as explanations) coincide. The third contribution is establishing a precise criterion of when a semantics induced by justification theory yields consistent results. In the past proving that such semantics were consistent took cumbersome and elaborate proofs. We show that these criteria are indeed satisfied for all common semantics of logic programming. This paper is under consideration for acceptance in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).

Bart Bogaerts, Emilio Gamba, Tias Guns

We explore the problem of step-wise explaining how to solve constraint satisfaction problems, with a use case on logic grid puzzles. More specifically, we study the problem of explaining the inference steps that one can take during propagation, in a way that is easy to interpret for a person. Thereby, we aim to give the constraint solver explainable agency, which can help in building trust in the solver by being able to understand and even learn from the explanations. The main challenge is that of finding a sequence of simple explanations, where each explanation should aim to be as cognitively easy as possible for a human to verify and understand. This contrasts with the arbitrary combination of facts and constraints that the solver may use when propagating. We propose the use of a cost function to quantify how simple an individual explanation of an inference step is, and identify the explanation-production problem of finding the best sequence of explanations of a CSP. Our approach is agnostic of the underlying constraint propagation mechanisms, and can provide explanations even for inference steps resulting from combinations of constraints. In case multiple constraints are involved, we also develop a mechanism that allows to break the most difficult steps up and thus gives the user the ability to zoom in on specific parts of the explanation. Our proposed algorithm iteratively constructs the explanation sequence by using an optimistic estimate of the cost function to guide the search for the best explanation at each step. Our experiments on logic grid puzzles show the feasibility of the approach in terms of the quality of the individual explanations and the resulting explanation sequences obtained.

Bart Bogaerts, Esra Erdem, Paul Fodor et al.

Since the first conference held in Marseille in 1982, ICLP has been the premier international event for presenting research in logic programming. Contributions are sought in all areas of logic programming, including but not restricted to: Foundations: Semantics, Formalisms, Nonmonotonic reasoning, Knowledge representation. Languages: Concurrency, Objects, Coordination, Mobility, Higher Order, Types, Modes, Assertions, Modules, Meta-programming, Logic-based domain-specific languages, Programming Techniques. Declarative programming: Declarative program development, Analysis, Type and mode inference, Partial evaluation, Abstract interpretation, Transformation, Validation, Verification, Debugging, Profiling, Testing, Execution visualization Implementation: Virtual machines, Compilation, Memory management, Parallel/distributed execution, Constraint handling rules, Tabling, Foreign interfaces, User interfaces. Related Paradigms and Synergies: Inductive and Co-inductive Logic Programming, Constraint Logic Programming, Answer Set Programming, Interaction with SAT, SMT and CSP solvers, Logic programming techniques for type inference and theorem proving, Argumentation, Probabilistic Logic Programming, Relations to object-oriented and Functional programming. Applications: Databases, Big Data, Data integration and federation, Software engineering, Natural language processing, Web and Semantic Web, Agents, Artificial intelligence, Computational life sciences, Education, Cybersecurity, and Robotics.

Jo Devriendt, Bart Bogaerts

Symmetry breaking has been proven to be an efficient preprocessing technique for satisfiability solving (SAT). In this paper, we port the state-of-the-art SAT symmetry breaker BreakID to answer set programming (ASP). The result is a lightweight tool that can be plugged in between the grounding and the solving phases that are common when modelling in ASP. We compare our tool with sbass, the current state-of-the-art symmetry breaker for ASP.

Joachim Jansen, Jo Devriendt, Bart Bogaerts et al.

PC(ID) extends propositional logic with inductive definitions: rule sets under the well-founded semantics. Recently, a notion of relevance was introduced for this language. This notion determines the set of undecided literals that can still influence the satisfiability of a PC(ID) formula in a given partial assignment. The idea is that the PC(ID) solver can make decisions only on relevant literals without losing soundness and thus safely ignore irrelevant literals. One important insight that the relevance of a literal is completely determined by the current solver state. During search, the solver state changes have an effect on the relevance of literals. In this paper, we discuss an incremental, lightweight implementation of a relevance tracker module that can be added to and interact with an out-of-the-box SAT(ID) solver.

Bart Bogaerts, Tomi Janhunen, Shahab Tasharrofi

Standard answer set programming (ASP) targets at solving search problems from the first level of the polynomial time hierarchy (PH). Tackling search problems beyond NP using ASP is less straightforward. The class of disjunctive logic programs offers the most prominent way of reaching the second level of the PH, but encoding respective hard problems as disjunctive programs typically requires sophisticated techniques such as saturation or meta-interpretation. The application of such techniques easily leads to encodings that are inaccessible to non-experts. Furthermore, while disjunctive ASP solvers often rely on calls to a (co-)NP oracle, it may be difficult to detect from the input program where the oracle is being accessed. In other formalisms, such as Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBFs), the interface to the underlying oracle is more transparent as it is explicitly recorded in the quantifier prefix of a formula. On the other hand, ASP has advantages over QBFs from the modeling perspective. The rich high-level languages such as ASP-Core-2 offer a wide variety of primitives that enable concise and natural encodings of search problems. In this paper, we present a novel logic programming--based modeling paradigm that combines the best features of ASP and QBFs. We develop so-called combined logic programs in which oracles are directly cast as (normal) logic programs themselves. Recursive incarnations of this construction enable logic programming on arbitrarily high levels of the PH. We develop a proof-of-concept implementation for our new paradigm. This paper is under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.

Bart Bogaerts, Eugenia Ternovska, David Mitchell

To appear in the proceedings of LPAR 21. Solving complex problems can involve non-trivial combinations of distinct knowledge bases and problem solvers. The Algebra of Modular Systems is a knowledge representation framework that provides a method for formally specifying such systems in purely semantic terms. Formally, an expression of the algebra defines a class of structures. Many expressive formalism used in practice solve the model expansion task, where a structure is given on the input and an expansion of this structure in the defined class of structures is searched (this practice overcomes the common undecidability problem for expressive logics). In this paper, we construct a solver for the model expansion task for a complex modular systems from an expression in the algebra and black-box propagators or solvers for the primitive modules. To this end, we define a general notion of propagators equipped with an explanation mechanism, an extension of the alge- bra to propagators, and a lazy conflict-driven learning algorithm. The result is a framework for seamlessly combining solving technology from different domains to produce a solver for a combined system.

Bart Bogaerts, Joost Vennekens, Marc Denecker et al.

Cause-effect relations are an important part of human knowledge. In real life, humans often reason about complex causes linked to complex effects. By comparison, existing formalisms for representing knowledge about causal relations are quite limited in the kind of specifications of causes and effects they allow. In this paper, we present the new language C-Log, which offers a significantly more expressive representation of effects, including such features as the creation of new objects. We show how C-Log integrates with first-order logic, resulting in the language FO(C). We also compare FO(C) with several related languages and paradigms, including inductive definitions, disjunctive logic programming, business rules and extensions of Datalog.

Maurice Bruynooghe, Hendrik Blockeel, Bart Bogaerts et al.

This paper provides a gentle introduction to problem solving with the IDP3 system. The core of IDP3 is a finite model generator that supports first order logic enriched with types, inductive definitions, aggregates and partial functions. It offers its users a modeling language that is a slight extension of predicate logic and allows them to solve a wide range of search problems. Apart from a small introductory example, applications are selected from problems that arose within machine learning and data mining research. These research areas have recently shown a strong interest in declarative modeling and constraint solving as opposed to algorithmic approaches. The paper illustrates that the IDP3 system can be a valuable tool for researchers with such an interest. The first problem is in the domain of stemmatology, a domain of philology concerned with the relationship between surviving variant versions of text. The second problem is about a somewhat related problem within biology where phylogenetic trees are used to represent the evolution of species. The third and final problem concerns the classical problem of learning a minimal automaton consistent with a given set of strings. For this last problem, we show that the performance of our solution comes very close to that of a state-of-the art solution. For each of these applications, we analyze the problem, illustrate the development of a logic-based model and explore how alternatives can affect the performance.