Dynamic Bayesian networks (DBNs) are a general model for stochastic processes with partially observed states. Belief filtering in DBNs is the task of inferring the belief state (i.e. the probability distribution over process states) based on incomplete and noisy observations. This can be a hard problem in complex processes with large state spaces. In this article, we explore the idea of accelerating the filtering task by automatically exploiting causality in the process. We consider a specific type of causal relation, called passivity, which pertains to how state variables cause changes in other variables. We present the Passivity-based Selective Belief Filtering (PSBF) method, which maintains a factored belief representation and exploits passivity to perform selective updates over the belief factors. PSBF produces exact belief states under certain assumptions and approximate belief states otherwise, where the approximation error is bounded by the degree of uncertainty in the process. We show empirically, in synthetic processes with varying sizes and degrees of passivity, that PSBF is faster than several alternative methods while achieving competitive accuracy. Furthermore, we demonstrate how passivity occurs naturally in a complex system such as a multi-robot warehouse, and how PSBF can exploit this to accelerate the filtering task.

In many scenarios where the integration of information into a knowledge base (KB) leads to inconsistencies there is a need to change the KB minimally. In belief revision, relevance postulates meet the minimality requirement by restricting the elimination of KB elements to those that are relevant for the incoming information. This paper focuses on two minimality postulates in an ontology revision scenario in which conflicts are caused by ambiguous use of symbols: a relevance postulate and a generalized inclusion postulate which limits the creativity of the operators. Both postulates exploit the (satisfiably) equivalent representation of a first-order logic KB by its prime implicates, which, intuitively, represent the most atomic logical components of the KB. The paper shows that reinterpretation operators (which are ontology revision operators) fulfill both postulates.

We consider the problem of obtaining coherence in a propositional knowledge base using techniques from Belief Change. Our motivation comes from the field of formal ontologies where coherence is interpreted to mean that a concept name has to be satisfiable. In the propositional case we consider here, this translates to a propositional formula being satisfiable. We define belief change operators in a framework of nonmonotonic preferential reasoning.We show how the introduction of defeasible information using contraction operators can be an effective means for obtaining coherence.

This paper tackles the problem of evaluating the degree of inconsistency in spatial and temporal qualitative reasoning. We first introduce postulates to propose a formal framework for measuring inconsistency in this context. Then, we provide two inconsistency measures that can be useful in various AI applications. The first one is based on the number of constraints that we need to relax to get a consistent qualitative constraint network. The second inconsistency measure is based on variable restrictions to restore consistency. It is defined from the minimum number of variables that we need to ignore to recover consistency. We show that our proposed measures satisfy required postulates and other appropriate properties. Finally, we discuss the impact of our inconsistency measures on belief merging in qualitative reasoning.

Preference models lie at the core of the formalization for several related notions, such as non-monotonic reasoning,obligations, goals, beliefs, etc. Recently, the interest in integrating dynamic operators in the logics of belief, preference and obligation has gained momentum.This integration sheds light on similarities among several change operations traditionally studied independently of each other. While a prolific approach, important operations, such as the well-known contraction of beliefs or derogation of norms studied in the AGM tradition,have not received proper attention in this framework.In this work, we study codifications of contraction operations, stemming from the work on iterate dbelief change, in the logic of preferences, by means of both semantically defined operations and their counterpart in syntactical priority structures.

This paper is set to study the applicability of AGM-like operations to probabilistic bases. We focus on the problem of consistency restoration, also called consolidation or contraction by falsity. We aim to identify the reasons why the set of AGM postulates based on discrete operations of deletions and accretions is too coarse to treat finely adjustable probabilistic formulas. We propose new principles that allow one to deal with the consolidation of inconsistent probabilistic bases, presenting a finer method called liftable contraction. Furthermore, we show that existing methods for probabilistic consolidation via distance minimization are particular cases of the methods proposed.

Formalizing dynamics of argumentation has received increasing attention over the last years. While AGM-like representation results for revision of argumentation frameworks (AFs) are now available, similar results for the problem of merging are still missing. In this paper, we close this gap and adapt model-based propositional belief merging to define extension-based merging operators for AFs. We state an axiomatic and a constructive characterization of merging operators through a family of rationality postulates and a representation theorem. Then we exhibit merging operators which satisfy the postulates. In contrast to the case of revision, we observe that obtaining a single framework as result of merging turns out to be a more subtle issue. Finally, we establish links between our new results and previous approaches to merging of AFs, which mainly relied on axioms from Social Choice Theory, but lacked AGM-like representation theorems.

Goal recognition design involves the offline analysis of goal recognition models by formulating measures that assess the ability to perform goal recognition within a model and finding efficient ways to compute and optimize them. In this work we relax the full observability assumption of earlier work by offering a new generalized model for goal recognition design with non-observable actions. A model with partial observability is relevant to goal recognition applications such as assisted cognition and security, which suffer from reduced observability due to sensor malfunction or lack of sufficient budget. In particular we define a worst case distinctiveness (wcd) measure that represents the maximal number of steps an agent can take in a system before the observed portion of his trajectory reveals his objective. We present a method for calculating wcd based on a novel compilation to classical planning and propose a method to improve the design using sensor placement. Our empirical evaluation shows that the proposed solutions effectively compute and improve wcd.

Reciprocal processes are acausal generalizations of Markov processes introduced by Bernstein in 1932. In the literature, a significant amount of attention has been focused on developing dynamical models for reciprocal processes. Recently, probabilistic graphical models for reciprocal processes have been provided. This opens the way to the application of efficient inference algorithms in the machine learning literature to solve the smoothing problem for reciprocal processes. Such algorithms are known to converge if the underlying graph is a tree. This is not the case for a reciprocal process, whose associated graphical model is a single loop network. The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, we introduce belief propagation for Gaussian reciprocal processes. Second, we establish a link between convergence analysis of belief propagation for Gaussian reciprocal processes and stability theory for differentially positive systems.

Plausibility models are Kripke models that agents use to reason about knowledge and belief, both of themselves and of each other. Such models are used to interpret the notions of conditional belief, degrees of belief, and safe belief. The logic of conditional belief contains that modality and also the knowledge modality, and similarly for the logic of degrees of belief and the logic of safe belief. With respect to these logics, plausibility models may contain too much information. A proper notion of bisimulation is required that characterises them. We define that notion of bisimulation and prove the required characterisations: on the class of image-finite and preimage-finite models (with respect to the plausibility relation), two pointed Kripke models are modally equivalent in either of the three logics, if and only if they are bisimilar. As a result, the information content of such a model can be similarly expressed in the logic of conditional belief, or the logic of degrees of belief, or that of safe belief. This, we found a surprising result. Still, that does not mean that the logics are equally expressive: the logics of conditional and degrees of belief are incomparable, the logics of degrees of belief and safe belief are incomparable, while the logic of safe belief is more expressive than the logic of conditional belief. In view of the result on bisimulation characterisation, this is an equally surprising result. We hope our insights may contribute to the growing community of formal epistemology and on the relation between qualitative and quantitative modelling.