LP MLN is a recently introduced formalism that extends answer set programs by adopting the log-linear weight scheme of Markov Logic. This paper investigates the relationships between LPMLN and two other extensions of answer set programs: weak constraints to express a quantitative preference among answer sets, and P-log to incorporate probabilistic uncertainty. We present a translation of LP MLN into programs with weak constraints and a translation of P-log into LPMLN, which complement the existing translations in the opposite directions. The first translation allows us to compute the most probable stable models (i.e., MAP estimates) of LP MLN programs using standard ASP solvers. This result can be extended to other formalisms, such as Markov Logic, ProbLog, and Pearl's Causal Models, that are shown to be translatable into LP MLN . The second translation tells us how probabilistic nonmonotonicity (the ability of the reasoner to change his probabilistic model as a result of new information) of P-log can be represented in LP MLN , which yields a way to compute P-log using standard ASP solvers and MLN solvers.

We present SAT encoding schemes for distance-based belief merging operators relying on the (possibly weighted) drastic distance or the Hamming distance between interpretations, and using sum, GMax (leximax) or GMin (leximin) as aggregation function. In order to evaluate these encoding schemes, we generated benchmarks of a time-tabling problem and translated them into belief merging instances. Then, taking advantage of these schemes, we compiled the merged bases of the resulting instances into query-equivalent CNF formulae. Experiments have shown the benefits which can be gained by considering the SAT encoding schemes we pointed out. Especially, thanks to them, we succeeded in computing query-equivalent formulae for merging instances based on hundreds of variables, which are out of reach of previous implementations.

Persuasion is an activity that involves one party (the persuader) trying to induce another party (the persuadee) to believe or do something. For this, it can be advantageous forthe persuader to have a model of the persuadee. Recently, some proposals in the field of computational models of argument have been made for probabilistic models of what the persuadee knows about, or believes. However, these developments have not systematically harnessed established notions in decision theory for maximizing the outcome of a dialogue. To address this, we present a general framework for representing persuasion dialogues as a decision tree, and for using decision rules for selecting moves. Furthermore, we provide some empirical results showing how some well-known decision rules perform, and make observations about their general behaviour in the context of dialogues where there is uncertainty about the accuracy of the user model.

TBox abduction explains why an observation is not entailed by a TBox, by computing multiple sets of axioms, called explanations , such that each explanation does not entail the observation alone while appending an explanation to the TBox renders the observation entailed but does not introduce incoherence. Considering that practical explanations in TBox abduction are likely to mimic minimal explanations for TBox entailments, we introduce admissible explanations which are subsets of those justifications for the observation that are instantiated from a finite set of justification patterns. A justification pattern is obtained from a minimal set of axioms responsible for a certain atomic concept inclusion by replacing all concept (resp. role) names with concept (resp. role) variables. The number of admissible explanations is finite but can still be so large that computing all admissible explanations is impractical. Thus, we introduce a variant of subset-minimality, written ⊆ ds -minimality, which prefers fresh (concept or role) names than existing names. We propose efficient methods for computing all admissible ⊆ ds -minimal explanations and for computing all justification patterns, respectively. Experimental results demonstrate that combining the proposed methods is able to achieve a practical approach to TBox abduction.

Probabilistic databases (PDBs) are usually incomplete, e.g., containing only the facts that have been extracted from the Web with high confidence. However, missing facts are often treated as being false, which leads to unintuitive results when querying PDBs. Recently, open-world probabilistic databases (OpenPDBs) were proposed to address this issue by allowing probabilities of unknown facts to take any value from a fixed probability interval. In this paper, we extend OpenPDBs by Datalog+/- ontologies, under which both upper and lower probabilities of queries become even more informative, enabling us to distinguish queries that were indistinguishable before. We show that the dichotomy between P and PP in (Open)PDBs can be lifted to the case of first-order rewritable positive programs (without negative constraints); and that the problem can become NP^PP-complete, once negative constraints are allowed. We also propose an approximating semantics that circumvents the increase in complexity caused by negative constraints.

We study the problem of troubleshooting machine learning systems that rely on analytical pipelines of distinct components. Understanding and fixing errors that arise in such integrative systems is difficult as failures can occur at multiple points in the execution workflow. Moreover, errors can propagate, become amplified or be suppressed, making blame assignment difficult. We propose a human-in-the-loop methodology which leverages human intellect for troubleshooting system failures. The approach simulates potential component fixes through human computation tasks and measures the expected improvements in the holistic behavior of the system. The method provides guidance to designers about how they can best improve the system. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach on an automated image captioning system that has been pressed into real-world use.

In this paper, we present a Virtual-Suspect system which can be used to train inexperienced law enforcement personnel in interrogation strategies. The system supports different scenario configurations based on historical data. The responses presented by the Virtual-Suspect are selected based on the psychological state of the suspect, which can be configured as well. Furthermore, each interrogator's statement affects the Virtual-Suspect's current psychological state, which may lead the interrogation in different directions. In addition, the model takes into account the context in which the statements are made. Experiments with 24 subjects demonstrate that the Virtual-Suspect's behavior is similar to that of a human who plays the role of the suspect.

Generation and evaluation of crowdsourced content is commonly treated as two separate processes, performed at different times and by two distinct groups of people: content creators and content assessors. As a result, most crowdsourcing tasks follow this template: one group of workers generates content and another group of workers evaluates it. In an educational setting, for example, content creators are traditionally students that submit open-response answers to assignments (e.g., a short answer, a circuit diagram, or a formula) and content assessors are instructors that grade these submissions. Despite the considerable success of peer-grading in massive open online courses (MOOCs), the process of test-taking and grading are still treated as two distinct tasks which typically occur at different times, and require an additional overhead of grader training and incentivization. Inspired by this problem in the context of education, we propose a general crowdsourcing framework that fuses open-response test-taking (content generation) and assessment into a single, streamlined process that appears to students in the form of an explicit test, but where everyone also acts as an implicit grader. The advantages offered by our framework include: a common incentive mechanism for both the creation and evaluation of content, and a probabilistic model that jointly models the processes of contribution and evaluation, facilitating efficient estimation of the quality of the contributions and the competency of the contributors. We demonstrate the effectiveness and limits of our framework via simulations and a real-world user study.

This paper studies the benefit for information providers in free public information disclosure in settings where the prospective information buyers are people. The underlying model, which applies to numerous real-life situations, considers a standard decision making setting where the decision maker is uncertain about the outcomes of her decision. The information provider can fully disambiguate this uncertainty and wish to maximize her profit from selling such information. We use a series of AMT-based experiments with people to test the benefit for the information provider from reducing some of the uncertainty associated with the decision maker's problem, for free. Free information disclosure of this kind can be proved to be ineffective when the buyer is a fully-rational agent. Yet, when it comes to people we manage to demonstrate that a substantial improvement in the information provider's profit can be achieved with such an approach. The analysis of the results reveals that the primary reason for this phenomena is people's failure to consider the strategic nature of the interaction with the information provider. Peoples' inability to properly calculate the value of information is found to be secondary in its influence.

Analyses of text corpora over time can reveal trends in beliefs, interest, and sentiment about a topic. We focus on views expressed about artificial intelligence (AI) in the New York Times over a 30-year period. General interest, awareness, and discussion about AI has waxed and waned since the field was founded in 1956. We present a set of measures that captures levels of engagement, measures of pessimism and optimism, the prevalence of specific hopes and concerns, and topics that are linked to discussions about AI over decades. We find that discussion of AI has increased sharply since 2009, and that these discussions have been consistently more optimistic than pessimistic. However, when we examine specific concerns, we find that worries of loss of control of AI, ethical concerns for AI, and the negative impact of AI on work have grown in recent years. We also find that hopes for AI in healthcare and education have increased over time.