Artificial intelligence (AI) approaches to problem-solving and decision-making are becoming more and more complex, leading to a decrease in the understandability of solutions. The European Union’s new General Data Protection Regulation tries to tackle this problem by stipulating a “right to explanation” for decisions made by AI systems. One of the AI paradigms that may be affected by this new regulation is answer set programming (ASP). Thanks to the emergence of efficient solvers, ASP has recently been used for problem-solving in a variety of domains, including medicine, cryptography, and biology. To ensure the successful application of ASP as a problem-solving paradigm in the future, explanations of ASP solutions are crucial. In this survey, we give an overview of approaches that provide an answer to the question ofwhyan answer set is a solution to a given problem, notably off-line justifications, causal graphs, argumentative explanations, and why-not provenance, and highlight their similarities and differences. Moreover, we review methods explaining why a set of literals isnotan answer set or why no solution exists at all.

This paper continues the line of research aimed at investigating the relationship between logic programs and first-order theories. We extend the definition of program completion to programs with input and output in a subset of the input language of the ASP grounder gringo, study the relationship between stable models and completion in this context, and describe preliminary experiments with the use of two software tools, anthem and vampire, for verifying the correctness of programs with input and output. Proofs of theorems are based on a lemma that relates the semantics of programs studied in this paper to stable models of first-order formulas.

In this work we propose a multi-valued extension of logic programs under the stable models semantics where each true atom in a model is associated with a set of justifications. These justifications are expressed in terms of causal graphs formed by rule labels and edges that represent their application ordering. For positive programs, we show that the causal justifications obtained for a given atom have a direct correspondence to (relevant) syntactic proofs of that atom using the program rules involved in the graphs. The most interesting contribution is that this causal information is obtained in a purely semantic way, by algebraic operations (product, sum and application) on a lattice of causal values whose ordering relation expresses when a justification is stronger than another. Finally, for programs with negation, we define the concept of causal stable model by introducing an analogous transformation to Gelfond and Lifschitz's program reduct. As a result, default negation behaves as “absence of proof” and no justification is derived from negative literals, something that turns out convenient for elaboration tolerance, as we explain with a running example.

We present a general approach to planning with incomplete information in Answer Set Programming (ASP). More precisely, we consider the problems of conformant and conditional planning with sensing actions and assumptions. We represent planning problems using a simple formalism where logic programs describe the transition function between states, the initial states and the goal states. For solving planning problems, we use Quantified Answer Set Programming (QASP), an extension of ASP with existential and universal quantifiers over atoms that is analogous to Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBFs). We define the language of quantified logic programs and use it to represent the solutions different variants of conformant and conditional planning. On the practical side, we present a translation-based QASP solver that converts quantified logic programs into QBFs and then executes a QBF solver, and we evaluate experimentally the approach on conformant and conditional planning benchmarks.

Refactoring is modifying a program without changing its external behavior. In this paper, we make the concept of external behavior precise for a simple answer set programming language. Then we describe a proof assistant for the task of verifying that refactoring a program in that language is performed correctly.