This paper presents a weakly supervised method that decomposes potentially compositional topics (Swiss passport) into zero or more constituent topics (Switzerland, Passport), where all topics are entries in a knowledge repository. The method increases the connectivity of the knowledge repository and, more importantly, identifies the constituent topics whose meaning can be later aggregated into the meaning of the compositional topics. By exploiting evidence within Wikipedia articles, the method acquires constituent topics of Freebase topics at precision and recall above 0.60, over multiple human-annotated evaluation sets.

We study the computational complexity of finding maximum a posteriori configurations in Bayesian networks whose probabilities are specified by logical formulas. This approach leads to a fine grained study in which local information such as context-sensitive independence and determinism can be considered. It also allows us to characterize more precisely the jump from tractability to NP-hardness and beyond, and to consider the complexity introduced by evidence alone.

Probabilistic systems are an important theme in AI domain. As the specification language, PCTL is the most frequently used logic for reasoning about probabilistic properties. In this paper, we present a natural and succinct probabilistic extension of Mu-calculus, another prominent logic in the concurrency theory. We study the relationship with PCTL. Surprisingly, the expressiveness is highly orthogonal with PCTL. The proposed logic captures some useful properties which cannot be expressed in PCTL. We investigate the model checking and satisfiability problem, and show that the model checking problem is in UP and co-UP, and the satisfiability checking can be decided via reducing into solving parity games. This is in contrast to PCTL as well, whose satisfiability checking is still an open problem.

In this article we present DUAL-PECCS, an integrated Knowledge Representation system aimed at extending artificial capabilities in tasks such as conceptual categorization. It relies on two different sorts of cognitively inspired common-sense reasoning: prototypical reasoning and exemplars-based reasoning. Furthermore, it is grounded on the theoretical tenets coming from the dual process theory of the mind, and on the hypothesis of heterogeneous proxytypes, developed in the area of the biologically inspired cognitive architectures (BICA). The system has been integrated into the ACT-R cognitive architecture, and experimentally assessed in a conceptual categorization task, where a target concept illustrated by a simple common-sense linguistic description had to be identified by resorting to a mix of categorization strategies. Compared to human-level categorization, the obtained results suggest that our proposal can be helpful in extending the representational and reasoning conceptual capabilities of standard cognitive artificial systems.

The paper develops a formal theory of the degree of justification of arguments, which relies solely on the structure of an argumentation framework. The theory is based on a generalisation of Dung’s notion of acceptability, making it sensitive to the numbers of attacks and counter-attacks on arguments. Graded generalisations of argumentation semantics are then obtained and studied. The theory is applied by showing how it can arbitrate between competing preferred extensions and how it captures a specific form of accrual in instantiated argumentation.

The paper analyses multi-agent strategic dialogues on possibly infinite argumentation frameworks. We develop a formal model for representing such dialogues, and introduce FO A -ATL, a first-order extension of alternating-time logic, for expressing the interplay of strategic and argumentation-theoretic properties. This setting is investigated with respect to the model checking problem, by means of a suitable notion of bisimulation. This notion of bisimulation is also used to shed light on how static properties of argumentation frameworks influence their dynamic behaviour.

We develop a methodology to model and verify Regarding the second limitation, proposals have been put open multi-agent systems (OMAS), where agents forward to consider a set of objects that vary at design time; may join in or leave at run time. Further, we specify the set of agents is normally considered to be finite in each properties of interest on OMAS in a variant of firstorder system run. This is a sensible assumption in many scenarios, temporal-epistemic logic, whose characterising but there are applications of MAS (e.g., e-commerce, smart features include epistemic modalities indexed grids) where an unbounded number of agents may freely enter to individual terms, interpreted on agents appearing and leave the system at run time. There is, therefore, at a given state. This formalism notably allows a need to account for the unbounded and possibly infinite to express group knowledge dynamically. We study agents joining in or leaving an open MAS. In this setting it the verification problem of these systems and show is still of interest to reason about their evolution and what that, under specific conditions, finite bisimilar abstractions they know individually and collectively. For example, in an can be obtained.

Hierarchies of concepts are useful in many applications from navigation to organization of objects. Usually, a hierarchy is created in a centralized manner by employing a group of domain experts, a time-consuming and expensive process. The experts often design one single hierarchy to best explain the semantic relationships among the concepts, and ignore the natural uncertainty that may exist in the process. In this paper, we propose a crowdsourcing system to build a hierarchy and furthermore capture the underlying uncertainty. Our system maintains a distribution over possible hierarchies and actively selects questions to ask using an information gain criterion. We evaluate our methodology on simulated data and on a set of real world application domains. Experimental results show that our system is robust to noise, efficient in picking questions, cost-effective, and builds high quality hierarchies.

Recently, several Web-scale knowledge harvesting systems have been built, each of which is competent at extracting information from certain types of data (e.g., unstructured text, structured tables on the web, etc.). In order to determine the response to a new query posed to such systems (e.g., is sugar a healthy food?), it is useful to integrate opinions from multiple systems. If a response is desired within a specific time budget (e.g., in less than 2 seconds), then maybe only a subset of these resources can be queried. In this paper, we address the problem of knowledge integration for on-demand time-budgeted query answering. We propose a new method, AskWorld, which learns a policy that chooses which queries to send to which resources, by accommodating varying budget constraints that are available only at query (test) time. Through extensive experiments on real world datasets, we demonstrate AskWorld’s capability in selecting most informative resources to query within test-time constraints, resulting in improved performance compared to competitive baselines.

Product review sites such as TripAdvisor, Yelp or Amazon provide a single, non personalized ranking of products. The sparse review data makes personalizing recommendations difficult. Topic Profile Collaborative Filtering exploits review texts to identify user profiles as a basis for similarity. We show that careful use of the available data and separating users into classes can greatly improve the performance of such techniques. We significantly improve MAE, RMSE, and Kendall tau, compared to the previous best results. In addition, we show that personalization does not benefit all the users to the same extent. We propose switching between a personalized and a non personalized method based on the user opinion profile. We show that the user's opinionatedness is a good indicator of whether the personalization will work or not.