This paper presents an axiomatic framework for influence diagram computation, which allows reasoning with partially ordered values of utility. We show how an algorithm based on sequential variable elimination can be used to compute the set of maximal values of expected utility (up to an equivalence relation). Formalisms subsumed by the framework include decision making under uncertainty based on multi-objective utility, or on interval-valued utilities, as well as a more qualitative decision theory based on order-of-magnitude probabilities and utilities.

We deal with the problem of how to extend a preference relation over a set X of "objects" to the set of all subsets of X. This problem has been carried out in the tradition of the literature on extending an order on a set to its power set with the objective to analyze the axiomatic structure of families of rankings over subsets. In particular, most of these approaches make use of axioms aimed to prevent any kind of interaction among the objects in X . In this paper, we apply coalitional games to study the problem of extending preferences over a finite set X to its power set 2 X . A coalitional game can be seen as a numerical representation of a preference extension on 2 X . . We focus on a particular class of extensions on 2 X . such that the ranking induced by the Shapley value of each coalitional game representing an extension in this class, coincides with the original preference on X . Some properties of Shapley extensions are discussed, with the objective to justify and contextualize the application of Shapley extensions to the problem of ranking sets of possibly interacting objects.We deal with the problem of how to extend a preference relation over a set X of "objects" to the set of all subsets of X . This problem has been carried out in the tradition of the literature on extending an order on a set to its power set with the objective to analyze the axiomatic structure of families of rankings over subsets. In particular, most of these approaches make use of axioms aimed to prevent any kind of interaction among the objects in X . In this paper, we apply coalitional games to study the problem of extending preferences over a finite set X to its power set 2 X . . A coalitional game can be seen as a numerical representation of a preference extension on 2 X . . We focus on a particular class of extensions on 2 X. such that the ranking induced by the Shapley value of each coalitional game representing an extension in this class, coincides with the original preference on X . Some properties of Shapley extensions are discussed, with the objective to justify and contextualize the application of Shapley extensions to the problem of ranking sets of possibly interacting objects.

We introduce the framework of qualitative optimization problems (or, simply, optimization problems) to represent preference theories. The formalism uses separate modules to describe the space of outcomes to be compared (the generator) and the preferences on outcomes (the selector). We consider two types of optimization problems. They differ in the way the generator, which we model by a propositional theory, is interpreted: by the standard propositional logic semantics, and by the equilibrium-model (answer-set) semantics. Under the latter interpretation of generators, optimization problems directly generalize answer-set optimization programs proposed previously. We study strong equivalence of optimization problems, which guarantees their interchangeability within any larger context. We characterize several versions of strong equivalence obtained by restricting the class of optimization problems that can be used as extensions and establish the complexity of associated reasoning tasks. Understanding strong equivalence is essential for modular representation of optimization problems and rewriting techniques to simplify them without changing their inherent properties.

Existing methods for dealing with knowledge updates differ greatly depending on the underlying knowledge representation formalism. When Classical Logic is used, update operators are typically based on manipulating the knowledge base on the model-theoretic level. On the opposite side of the spectrum stand the semantics for updating Answer-Set Programs where most approaches need to rely on rule syntax. Yet, a unifying perspective that could embrace all these approaches is of great importance as it enables a deeper understanding of all involved methods and principles and creates room for their cross-fertilisation, ripening and further development. This paper bridges these seemingly irreconcilable approaches to updates. It introduces a novel monotonic characterisation of rules, dubbed \emph{\RE-models}, and shows it to be a more suitable semantic foundation for rule updates than \SE-models. A generic framework for defining semantic rule update operators is then proposed. It is based on the idea of viewing a program as the \emph{set of sets of \RE-models} of its rules; updates are performed by introducing additional interpretations to the sets of \RE-models of rules in the original program. It is shown that particular instances of the framework are closely related to both belief update principles and traditional approaches to rule updates and enjoy a range of plausible syntactic as well as semantic properties.

An agent will generally have incomplete and possibly inaccurate knowledge about its environment. In addition, such an agent may receive erroneous information, perhaps in being misinformed about the truth of some formula. In this paper we present a general approach to reasoning about action and belief change in such a setting. An agent may carry out actions, but in some cases may inadvertently execute the wrong one (for example, pushing an unintended button). As well, an agent may sense whether a condition holds, and may revise its beliefs after being told that a formula is true. Our approach is based on an epistemic extension to basic action theories expressed in the situation calculus, augmented by a plausibility relation over situations. This plausibility relation can be thought of as characterising the agent's overall belief state; as such it keeps track of not just the formulas that the agent believes to hold, but also the plausibility of formulas that it does not believe to hold. The agent's belief state is updated by suitably modifying the plausibility relation following the execution of an action. We show that our account generalises previous approaches, and fully handles belief revision, sensing, and erroneous actions.

The dynamic nature of ontology development has motivated the formal study of ontology evolution problems. This paper presents a logical framework that enables fine-grained investigation of evolution problems at a deductive level. In our framework, the optimal evolutions of an ontology O are those ontologies O′ that maximally preserve both the structure of O and its entailments in a given preservation language. We show that our framework is compatible with the postulates of Belief Revision, and we investigate the existence of optimal evolutions in various settings. In particular, we present first results on TBox-level revision and contraction in the EL and FL0 families of Description Logics.

Belief revision has been extensively studied in the framework of propositional logic, but just recently revision within fragments of propositional logic has gained attention. Hereby it is not only the belief set and the revision formula which are given within a certain language fragment, but also the result of the revision has to be located in the same fragment. So far, research in this direction has been mainly devoted to the Horn fragment of classical logic. In this work, we present a general approach to define new revision operators derived from known operators (as for instance, Satoh's and Dalal's revision operators), such that the result of the revision remains in the fragment under consideration. Our approach is not limited to the Horn case but applicable to any fragment of propositional logic where the models of the formulas are closed under a Boolean function. Thus we are able to uniformly treat cases as dual-Horn, Krom and affine formulas, as well.

In Belief Revision the new information is generally accepted, following the principle of primacy of update. In some case this behavior can be criticized and one could require that some new pieces of information can be rejected by the agent because, for instance, of insufficient plausibility. This has given rise to several approaches of non-prioritized Belief Revision. In particular (Hansson et al. 2001) defined credibility-limited revision operators, where a revision is accepted only if the new information is a formula that belongs to a set of credible formulas. They provide several representation theorems in the AGM style. In this work we study credibility-limited revision operators when the information is represented in propositional logic, like in the Katsuno and Mendelzon framework. We propose a set of postulates and a representation theorem for credibility-limited revision operators. Then we explore how to generalize these definitions to the Iterated Belief Revision case, using epistemic states in the Darwiche and Pearl style.

Belief change studies how to update knowledge bases used for reasoning. Traditionally belief revision has been based on full propositional logic. However, reasoning with full propositional knowledge bases is computationally hard, whereas reasoning with Horn knowledge bases is fast. In the past several years, there has been considerable work in belief revision theory on developing a theory of belief contraction for knowledge represented in Horn form. Our main focus here is the computational complexity of belief contraction, and, in particular, of various methods and approaches suggested in the literature. This is a natural and important question, especially in connection with one of the primary motivations for considering Horn representation: efficiency. The problems considered lead to questions about Horn envelopes (or Horn LUBs), introduced earlier in the context of knowledge compilation. This work gives a syntactic characterization of the remainders of a Horn belief set with respect to a consequence to be contracted, as the Horn envelopes of the belief set and an elementary conjunction corresponding to a truth assignment satisfying a certain explicitly given formula. This gives an efficient algorithm to generate all remainders, each represented by a truth assignment. On the negative side, examples are given of Horn belief sets and consequences where Horn formulas representing the result of contraction, based either on remainders or on weak remainders, must have exponential size for almost all possible choice functions (i.e., different possible choices of partial meet contraction). Therefore using the Horn framework for belief contraction does not by itself give us computational efficiency. Further work is required to explore the possibilities for efficient belief change methods.

Answering queries in information systems that allow for ex- pressive inferencing is currently a field of intense research. This problem is often referred to as ontology-based data ac- cess (OBDA). We focus on conjunctive query entailment un- der logical rules known as tuple-generating dependencies, existential rules or Datalog+/-. One of the most expressive decidable classes of existential rules known today is that of greedy bounded treewidth sets (gbts). We propose an algo- rithm for this class, which is worst-case optimal for data and combined complexities, with or without bound on the pred- icate arity. A beneficial feature of this algorithm is that it allows for separation between offline and online processing steps: the knowledge base can be compiled independently from queries, which are evaluated against the compiled form. Moreover, very simple adaptations of the algorithm lead to worst-case-optimal complexities for specific subclasses of gbts which have lower complexities, such as guarded rules.