This paper considers the problem of tracking a large-scale number of group targets. Usually, multi-target in most tracking scenarios are assumed to have independent motion and are well-separated. However, for group target tracking (GTT), the targets within groups are closely spaced and move in a coordinated manner, the groups can split or merge, and the numbers of targets in groups may be large, which lead to more challenging data association, filtering and computation problems. Within the belief propagation (BP) framework, we propose a scalable group target belief propagation (GTBP) method by jointly inferring target existence variables, group structure, data association and target states. The method can efficiently calculate the approximations of the marginal posterior distributions of these variables by performing belief propagation on the devised factor graph. As a consequence, GTBP is capable of capturing the changes in group structure, e.g., group splitting and merging. Furthermore, we model the evolution of targets as the co-action of the group or single-target motions specified by the possible group structures and corresponding probabilities. This flexible modeling enables seamless and simultaneous tracking of multiple group targets and ungrouped targets. Particularly, GTBP has excellent scalability and low computational complexity. It not only maintains the same scalability as BP, i.e., scaling linearly in the number of sensor measurements and quadratically in the number of targets, but also only scales linearly in the number of preserved group partitions. Finally, numerical experiments are presented to demonstrate the effectiveness and scalability of the proposed GTBP method.

Theory of stable models is the mathematical basis of answer set programming. Several results in that theory refer to the concept of the positive dependency graph of a logic program. We describe a modification of that concept and show that the new understanding of positive dependency makes it possible to strengthen some of these results.

Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP) provides a principled and generic framework to model real world sequential decision making processes but yet remains unsolved, especially for high dimensional continuous space and unknown models. The main challenge lies in how to accurately obtain the belief state, which is the probability distribution over the unobservable environment states given historical information. Accurately calculating this belief state is a precondition for obtaining an optimal policy of POMDPs. Recent advances in deep learning techniques show great potential to learn good belief states. However, existing methods can only learn approximated distribution with limited flexibility. In this paper, we introduce the \textbf{F}l\textbf{O}w-based \textbf{R}ecurrent \textbf{BE}lief \textbf{S}tate model (FORBES), which incorporates normalizing flows into the variational inference to learn general continuous belief states for POMDPs. Furthermore, we show that the learned belief states can be plugged into downstream RL algorithms to improve performance. In experiments, we show that our methods successfully capture the complex belief states that enable multi-modal predictions as well as high quality reconstructions, and results on challenging visual-motor control tasks show that our method achieves superior performance and sample efficiency.

Precise coordinated planning enables safe and highly efficient motion when many robots must work together in tight spaces, but this would normally require centralised control of all devices which is difficult to scale. We demonstrate a new purely distributed technique based on Gaussian Belief Propagation on multi-robot planning problems formulated by a generic factor graph defining dynamics and collision constraints. We show that our method allows extremely high performance collaborative planning in a simulated road traffic scenario, where vehicles are able to cross each other at a busy multi-lane junction while maintaining much higher average speeds than alternative distributed planning techniques. We encourage the reader to view the accompanying video demonstration to this work at https://youtu.be/5d4LXbxgxaY.

Most approaches for goal recognition rely on specifications of the possible dynamics of the actor in the environment when pursuing a goal. These specifications suffer from two key issues. First, encoding these dynamics requires careful design by a domain expert, which is often not robust to noise at recognition time. Second, existing approaches often need costly real-time computations to reason about the likelihood of each potential goal. In this paper, we develop a framework that combines model-free reinforcement learning and goal recognition to alleviate the need for careful, manual domain design, and the need for costly online executions. This framework consists of two main stages: Offline learning of policies or utility functions for each potential goal, and online inference. We provide a first instance of this framework using tabular Q-learning for the learning stage, as well as three measures that can be used to perform the inference stage. The resulting instantiation achieves state-of-the-art performance against goal recognizers on standard evaluation domains and superior performance in noisy environments.

In this paper, we investigate inductive inference with system W from conditional belief bases with respect to syntax splitting. The concept of syntax splitting for inductive inference states that inferences about independent parts of the signature should not affect each other. This was captured in work by Kern-Isberner, Beierle, and Brewka in the form of postulates for inductive inference operators expressing syntax splitting as a combination of relevance and independence; it was also shown that c-inference fulfils syntax splitting, while system P inference and system Z both fail to satisfy it. System W is a recently introduced inference system for nonmonotonic reasoning that captures and properly extends system Z as well as c-inference. We show that system W fulfils the syntax splitting postulates for inductive inference operators by showing that it satisfies the required properties of relevance and independence. This makes system W another inference operator besides c-inference that fully complies with syntax splitting, while in contrast to c-inference, also extending rational closure.

Belief revision studies strategies about how agents revise their belief states when receiving new evidence. Both in classical belief revision and in epistemic revision, a new input is either in the form of a (weighted) propositional formula or a total pre-order (where the total pre-order is considered as a whole). However, in some real-world applications, a new input can be a partial pre-order where each unit that constitutes the partial pre-order is important and should be considered individually. To address this issue, in this paper, we study how a partial pre-order representing the prior epistemic state can be revised by another partial pre-order (the new input) from a different perspective, where the revision is conducted recursively on the individual units of partial pre-orders. We propose different revision operators (rules), dubbed the extension, match, inner and outer revision operators, from different revision points of view. We also analyze several properties for these operators.

Belief merging aims at extracting a coherent and informative view from a set of belief bases. A first requirement for belief merging operators is to obey basic rationality conditions. Another expected property is to preserve as much information as possible from the input bases. In this paper, we show how new merging operators, called compositional operators, can be defined from existing ones. Such operators aim at offering a higher discriminative power than the merging operators on which they are based, without leading to a complexity shift or losing rationality postulates. We identify some sufficient conditions for ensuring that rationality is fully preserved by composition.

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.

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.