This paper presents a framework for relevance-based belief change in propositional Horn logic. We firstly establish a parallel interpolation theorem for Horn logic and show that Parikh's Finest Splitting Theorem holds with Horn formulae. By reformulating Parikh's relevance criterion in the setting of Horn belief change, we construct a relevance-based partial meet Horn contraction operator and provide a representation theorem for the operator. Interestingly, we find that this contraction operator can be fully characterised by Delgrande and Wassermann's postulates for partial meet Horn contraction as well as Parikh's relevance postulate without requiring any change on the postulates, which is qualitatively different from the case in classical propositional logic.

In this paper we examine the general problem of generating preferred explanations for observed behavior with respect to a model of the behavior of a dynamical system. This problem arises in a diversity of applications including diagnosis of dynamical systems and activity recognition. We provide a logical characterization of the notion of an explanation. To generate explanations we identify and exploit a correspondence between explanation generation and planning. The determination of good explanations requires additional domain-specific knowledge which we represent as preferences over explanations. The nature of explanations requires us to formulate preferences in a somewhat retrodictive fashion by utilizing Past Linear Temporal Logic. We propose methods for exploiting these somewhat unique preferences effectively within state-of-the-art planners and illustrate the feasibility of generating (preferred) explanations via planning.

Peer reviewing is the key ingredient of evaluating the quality of scientific work. Based on the review scores assigned by the individual reviewers to the submissions, program committees of conferences and journal editors decide which papers to accept for publication and which to reject. However, some reviewers may be more rigorous than others, they may be biased one way or the other, and they often have highly subjective preferences over the papers they review. Moreover, each reviewer usually has only a very local view, as he or she evaluates only a small fraction of the submissions. Despite all these shortcomings, the review scores obtained need to be aggregrated in order to globally rank all submissions and to make the acceptance/rejection decision. A common method is to simply take the average of each submission's review scores, possibly weighted by the reviewers' confidence levels. Unfortunately, the global ranking thus produced often suffers a certain unfairness, as the reviewers' biases and limitations are not taken into account. We propose a method for calibrating the scores of reviewers that are potentially biased and blindfolded by having only partial information. Our method uses a maximum likelihood estimator, which estimates both the bias of each individual reviewer and the unknown "ideal" score of each submission. This yields a quadratic program whose solution transforms the individual review scores into calibrated, globally comparable scores. We argue why our method results in a fairer and more reasonable global ranking than simply taking the average of scores. To show its usefulness, we test our method empirically using real-world data.

Epistemic extensions of description logics (DLs) have been introduced several years ago in order to enhance expressivity and querying capabilities of these logics by knowledge base introspection. We argue that unintended effects occur when imposing the traditionally employed semantics on the very expressive DLs that underly the OWL 1 and OWL 2 standards. Consequently, we suggest a revised semantics that behaves more intuitively in these cases and coincides with the traditional semantics of less expressive DLs. Moreover, we introduce a way of answering epistemic queries to OWL knowledge bases by a reduction to standard OWL reasoning. We provide an implementation of our approach and present first evaluation results.

It has been argued that causal rules are necessary for representing both implicit side-effects of actions and action qualifications, and there have been a number different approaches for representing causal rules in the area of formal theoriesof actions. These different approaches in general agree on rules without cycles. However, they differ on causal rules with mutual cyclic dependencies, both in terms of how these rules are supposed to be represented and their semantics. In this paper we show that by adding one more minimization to Lin's circumscriptive causal theory in the situation calculus, we can have a uniform representation of causal rules including those with cyclic dependencies. We also demonstrate that sometimes causal rules can be compiled into logically equivalent successor state axioms even in the presence of cyclical dependencies between fluents.

We propose a novel technique for proving the consistency of large, complex and heterogeneous theories for which ‘standard’ automated reasoning methods are considered insufficient. In particular, we exemplify the applicability of the method by establishing the consistency of the foundational ontology DOLCE, a large, first-order ontology. The approach we advocate constructs a global model for a theory, in our case DOLCE, built from smaller models of subtheories together with amalgamability properties between such models. The proof proceeds by (i) hand-crafting a so-called architectural specification of DOLCE which reflects the way models of the theory can be built, (ii) an automated verification of the amalgamability conditions, and (iii) a (partially automated) series of relative consistency proofs.

We study probabilistic variants of the description logic EL. For the case where probabilities apply only to concepts, we provide a careful analysis of the borderline between tractability and ExpTime-completeness. One outcome is that any probability value except zero and one leads to intractability in the presence of general TBoxes, while this is not the case for classical TBoxes. For the case where probabilities can also be applied to roles, we show PSpace-completeness. This result is (positively) surprising as the best previously known upper bound was 2-ExpTime and there were reasons to believe in completeness for this class.

We present a spectrum-based, sequential software debugging approach coined Sequoia, that greedily selects tests out of a suite of tests to narrow down the set of diagnostic candidates with a minimum number of tests. Sequoia handles multiple faults, that can be intermittent, at polynomial time and space complexity, due to a novel, approximate diagnostic entropy estimation approach, which considers the subset of diagnoses that cover almost all Bayesian posterior probability mass. Synthetic experiments show that Sequoia achieves much better diagnostic uncertainty reduction compared to random test sequencing.Real programs, taken from the Software Infrastructure Repository, confirm Sequoia's better performance, with a test reduction up to 80% compared to random test sequences.

We investigate an extension of Description Logics (DL) with higher-order capabilities, based on Henkin-style semantics. Our study starts from the observation that the various possibilities of adding higher-order con- structs to a DL form a spectrum of increasing expres- sive power, including domain metamodeling, i.e., using concepts and roles as predicate arguments. We argue that higher-order features of this type are sufficiently rich and powerful for the modeling requirements aris- ing in many relevant situations, and therefore we carry out an investigation of the computational complexity of satisfiability and conjunctive query answering in DLs extended with such higher-order features. In particular, we show that adding domain metamodeling capabilities to SHIQ (the core of OWL 2) has no impact on the complexity of the various reasoning tasks. This is also true for DL-LiteR (the core of OWL 2 QL) under suit- able restrictions on the queries.

This paper explores a new measure of similarity between point sets in arbitrary metric spaces. The measure is based on the spatial overlap of the “shapes” and “densities” of these point sets. It is applicable in any domain where point sets are a natural representation for data. Specifically, we show examples of its use in natural language processing, object recognition in images and point set classification. We provide a geometric interpretation of this measure and show that it is well-motivated, intuitive, parameter-free, and straightforward to use. We further demonstrate that it is computationally tractable and applicable to both supervised and unsupervised learning problems.