Prime implicates and prime implicants have proven relevant to a number of areas of artificial intelligence, most notably abductive reasoning and knowledge compilation. The purpose of this paper is to examine how these notions might be appropriately extended from propositional logic to the modal logic K. We begin the paper by considering a number of potential definitions of clauses and terms for K. The different definitions are evaluated with respect to a set of syntactic, semantic, and complexity-theoretic properties characteristic of the propositional definition. We then compare the definitions with respect to the properties of the notions of prime implicates and prime implicants that they induce. While there is no definition that perfectly generalizes the propositional notions, we show that there does exist one definition which satisfies many of the desirable properties of the propositional case. In the second half of the paper, we consider the computational properties of the selected definition. To this end, we provide sound and complete algorithms for generating and recognizing prime implicates, and we show the prime implicate recognition task to be PSPACE-complete. We also prove upper and lower bounds on the size and number of prime implicates. While the paper focuses on the logic K, all of our results hold equally well for multi-modal K and for concept expressions in the description logic ALC.

This paper presents the computational logic foundations of a model of agency called the KGP (Knowledge, Goals and Plan model. This model allows the specification of heterogeneous agents that can interact with each other, and can exhibit both proactive and reactive behaviour allowing them to function in dynamic environments by adjusting their goals and plans when changes happen in such environments. KGP provides a highly modular agent architecture that integrates a collection of reasoning and physical capabilities, synthesised within transitions that update the agents state in response to reasoning, sensing and acting. Transitions are orchestrated by cycle theories that specify the order in which transitions are executed while taking into account the dynamic context and agent preferences, as well as selection operators for providing inputs to transitions.

In order to meet usability requirements, most logic-based applications provide explanation facilities for reasoning services. This holds also for Description Logics, where research has focused on the explanation of both TBox reasoning and, more recently, query answering. Besides explaining the presence of a tuple in a query answer, it is important to explain also why a given tuple is missing. We address the latter problem for instance and conjunctive query answering over DL-Lite ontologies by adopting abductive reasoning; that is, we look for additions to the ABox that force a given tuple to be in the result. As reasoning tasks we consider existence and recognition of an explanation, and relevance and necessity of a given assertion for an explanation. We characterize the computational complexity of these problems for arbitrary, subset minimal, and cardinality minimal explanations.

Abduction has been extensively studied in propositional logic because of its many applications in artificial intelligence. However, its intrinsic complexity has been a limitation to the implementation of abductive reasoning tools in more expressive logics. We have devised such a tool in ground flat equational logic, in which literals are equations or disequations between constants. Our tool is based on the computation of prime implicates. It uses a relaxed paramodulation calculus, designed to generate all prime implicates of a formula, together with a carefully defined data structure storing the implicates and able to efficiently detect, and remove, redundancies. In addition to a detailed description of this method, we present an analysis of some experimental results.

Abductive reasoning (or Abduction, for short) is among the most fundamental AI reasoning methods, with a broad range of applications, including fault diagnosis, belief revision, and automated planning. Unfortunately, Abduction is of high computational complexity; even propositional Abduction is Σ 2 P -complete and thus harder than NP and coNP. This complexity barrier rules out the existence of a polynomial transformation to propositional satisfiability (SAT). In this work we use structural properties of the Abduction instance to break this complexity barrier. We utilize the problem structure in terms of small backdoor sets. We present fixed-parameter tractable transformations from Abduction to SAT, which make the power of today's SAT solvers available to Abduction.

In this paper we present a new approach to plan understanding that explains observed actions in terms of domain knowledge. The process operates over hierarchical methods and utilizes an incremental form of data-driven abductive inference. We report experiments on problems from the Monroe corpus that demonstrate a basic ability to construct plausible explanations, graceful degradation of performance with reduction of the fraction of actions observed, and results with incremental processing that are comparable to batch interpretation. We also discuss research on related tasks such as plan recognition and abductive construction of explanations.

We propose an abductive diagnosis theory that integrates probabilistic, causal and taxonomic knowledge. Probabilistic knowledge allows us to select the most likely explanation; causal knowledge allows us to make reasonable independence assumptions; taxonomic knowledge allows causation to be modeled at different levels of detail, and allows observations be described in different levels of precision. Unlike most other approaches where a causal explanation is a hypothesis that one or more causative events occurred, we define an explanation of a set of observations to be an occurrence of a chain of causation events. These causation events constitute a scenario where all the observations are true. We show that the probabilities of the scenarios can be computed from the conditional probabilities of the causation events. Abductive reasoning is inherently complex even if only modest expressive power is allowed. However, our abduction algorithm is exponential only in the number of observations to be explained, and is polynomial in the size of the knowledge base. This contrasts with many other abduction procedures that are exponential in the size of the knowledge base.

Department of Computer Science Brown University Providence, RI 02912 Abstract In general, the best explanation for a given observation makes no promises on how good it is with respect to other alternative explanations. A major deficiency of message-passing schemes for belief revision in Bayesian networks is their inability to generate alternatives beyond the second best. In this paper, we present a general approach based on linear constraint systems that naturally generates alternative explanations in an orderly and highly efficient manner. This approach is then applied to cost-based abduction problems as well as belief revision in Bayesian networks. INTRODUCTION We are constantly faced with the problem of explaining the observations we have gathered with our senses. Our explanations are constructed by assuming certain facts or hypotheses which support our observations. For example, suppose I decide to phone my friend Tony at the office.

The dynamics of belief and knowledge is one of the major components of any autonomous system that should be able to incorporate new pieces of information. In this paper, we argue that to apply rationality result of belief dynamics theory to various practical problems, it should be generalized in two respects: first of all, it should allow a certain part of belief to be declared as immutable; and second, the belief state need not be deductively closed. Such a generalization of belief dynamics, referred to as base dynamics, is presented, along with the concept of a generalized revision algorithm for Horn knowledge bases. We show that Horn knowledge base dynamics has interesting connection with kernel change and abduction. Finally, we also show that both variants are rational in the sense that they satisfy certain rationality postulates stemming from philosophical works on belief dynamics.

In answer-set programming (ASP), the solutions of a problem are encoded in dedicated models, called answer sets, of a logical theory. These answer sets are computed from the program that represents the theory by means of an ASP solver and returned to the user as sets of ground first-order literals. As this type of representation is often cumbersome for the user to interpret, tools like ASPVIZ and IDPDraw were developed that allow for visualising answer sets. The tool Kara, introduced in this paper, follows these approaches, using ASP itself as a language for defining visualisations of interpretations. Unlike existing tools that position graphic primitives according to static coordinates only, Kara allows for more high-level specifications, supporting graph structures, grids, and relative positioning of graphical elements. Moreover, generalising the functionality of previous tools, Kara provides modifiable visualisations such that interpretations can be manipulated by graphically editing their visualisations. This is realised by resorting to abductive reasoning techniques. Kara is part of SeaLion, a forthcoming integrated development environment (IDE) for ASP.