In this paper we develop a general framework that allows for both knowledge acquisition and forgetting in the Situation Calculus. Based on the Scherl and Levesque (Scherl and Levesque 1993) possible worlds approach to knowledge in the Situation Calculus, we allow for both sensing as well as explicit forgetting actions. This model of forgetting is then compared to existing frameworks. In particular we show that forgetting is well-behaved with respect to the contraction operator of the well-known AGM theory of belief revision (Alchourron, Gardenfors, and Makinson 1985) but that knowledge forgetting is distinct from the more commonly known notion of logical forgetting (Lin and Reiter 1994).

A central result in the AGM framework for belief revision is the construction of revisionfunctions in terms of total preorders on possible worlds. These preorders encode comparative plausibility: r<r' states that the world r is at least as plausible as r'. Indifference in the plausibility of two worlds, r, r', denoted r~r', is defined as the absence of a preference between r and r'. Herein we take a closer look at plausibility indifference. We contend that the transitivity of indifference assumed in the AGM framework is not always a desirable property for comparative plausibility. Our argument originates from similar concerns in preference modelling, where a structure weaker than a total preorder, called a semiorder, is widely consider to be a more adequate model of preference. In this paper we essentially re-construct revision functions using semiorders instead of total preorders. We formulate postulates to characterisethis new, wider, class of revision functions, and prove that the postulates are sound and complete with respect to the semiorder-based construction. The corresponding class of contraction functions (via theLevi and Harper Identities) is also characterised axiomatically.

A strong intuition for AGM belief change operations, Gärdenfors suggests, is that formulas that are independent of a change should remain intact. Based on this intuition, Fariñas and Herzig axiomatize a dependence relation w.r.t. a belief set, and formalize the connection between dependence and belief change. In this paper, we introduce base dependence as a relation between formulas w.r.t. a belief base. After an axiomatization of base dependence, we formalize the connection between base dependence and a particular belief base change operation, saturated kernel contraction. Moreover, we prove that base dependence is a reversible generalization of Fariñas and Herzig’s dependence. That is, in the special case when the underlying belief base is deductively closed (i.e., it is a belief set), base dependence reduces to dependence. Finally, an intriguing feature of Fariñas and Herzig’s formalism is that it meets other criteria for dependence, namely, Keynes’ conjunction criterion for dependence (CCD) and Gärdenfors’ conjunction criterion for independence (CCI). We show that our base dependence formalism also meets these criteria. More interestingly, we offer a more specific criterion that implies both CCD and CCI, and show our base dependence formalism also meets this new criterion.

Belief merging aims at defining the beliefs of a group of agents from the beliefs of each member of the group. It is related to more general notions of aggregation from economics (social choice theory). Two main subclasses of belief merging operators exist: majority operators which are related to utilitarianism, and arbitration operators which are related to egalitarianism. Though utilitarian (majority) operators have been extensively studied so far, there is much less work on egalitarian operators. In order to fill the gap, we investigate possible translations in a belief merging framework of some egalitarian properties and concepts coming from social choice theory, such as Sen-Hammond equity, Pigou- Dalton property, median, and Lorenz curves. We study how these properties interact with the standard rationality conditions considered in belief merging. Among other results, we show that the distance-based merging operators satisfying Sen-Hammond equity are mainly those for which leximax is used as the aggregation function.

In this paper, we investigate the revision of argumentation systems à la Dung. We focus on revision as minimal change of the arguments status. Contrarily to most of the previous works on the topic, the addition of new arguments is not allowed in the revision process, so that the revised system has to be obtained by modifying the attack relation only. We introduce a language of revision formulae which is expressive enough for enabling the representation of complex conditions on the acceptability of arguments in the revised system. We show how AGM belief revision postulates can be translated to the case of argumentation systems. We provide a corresponding representation theorem in terms of minimal change of the arguments statuses. Several distance-based revision operators satisfying the postulates are also pointed out, along with some methods to build revised argumentation systems. We also discuss some computational aspects of those methods.

We propose a new problem we refer to as goal recognitiondesign ( grd) , in which we take a domain theory and a set ofgoals and ask the following questions: to what extent do theactions performed by an agent within the model reveal its objective, and what is the best way to modify a model so thatany agent acting in the model reveals its objective as early aspossible. Our contribution is the introduction of a new measure we call worst case distinctiveness ( wcd ) with which weassess a  grd model. The  wcd represents the maximal lengthof a prefix of an optimal path an agent may take within a system before it becomes clear at which goal it is aiming. Tomodel and solve the  grd problem we choose to use the models and tools from the closely related field of automated planning. We present two methods for calculating the  wcd of a grd model, one of which is based on a novel compilation to aclassical planning problem. We then propose a way to reducethe  wcd of a model by limiting the set of available actions anagent can perform and provide a method for calculating theoptimal set of actions to be removed from the model. Our empirical evaluation shows the proposed solution to be effectivein computing and minimizing  wcd .

Recently, belief change within the framework of fragments of propositional logic has gained increasing attention. Previous works focused on belief contraction and belief revision on the Horn fragment. However, the problem of belief merging within fragments of propositional logic has been neglected so far. This paper presents a general approach to define new merging operators derived from existing ones such that the result of merging remains in the fragment under consideration. Our approach is not limited to the case of Horn fragment but applicable to any fragment of propositional logic characterized by a closure property on the sets of models of its formulae. We study the logical properties of the proposed operators in terms of satisfaction of merging postulates, considering in particular distance-based merging operators for Horn and Krom fragments.

A formal framework is given for the characterizability of a class of belief revision operators, defined using minimization over a class of partial preorders, by postulates. It is shown that for partial orders characterizability implies a definability property of the class of partial orders in monadic second-order logic. Based on a non-definability result for a class of partial orders, an example is given of a non-characterizable class of revision operators. This appears to be the first non-characterizability result in belief revision.

The paper investigates parameterized approximate message-passing schemes that are based on bounded inference and are inspired by Pearl's belief propagation algorithm (BP). We start with the bounded inference mini-clustering algorithm and then move to the iterative scheme called Iterative Join-Graph Propagation (IJGP), that combines both iteration and bounded inference. Algorithm IJGP belongs to the class of Generalized Belief Propagation algorithms, a framework that allowed connections with approximate algorithms from statistical physics and is shown empirically to surpass the performance of mini-clustering and belief propagation, as well as a number of other state-of-the-art algorithms on several classes of networks. We also provide insight into the accuracy of iterative BP and IJGP by relating these algorithms to well known classes of constraint propagation schemes.

Thanks to recent advances, AI Planning has become the underlying technique for several applications. Figuring prominently among these is automated Web Service Composition (WSC) at the "capability" level, where services are described in terms of preconditions and effects over ontological concepts. A key issue in addressing WSC as planning is that ontologies are not only formal vocabularies; they also axiomatize the possible relationships between concepts. Such axioms correspond to what has been termed "integrity constraints" in the actions and change literature, and applying a web service is essentially a belief update operation. The reasoning required for belief update is known to be harder than reasoning in the ontology itself. The support for belief update is severely limited in current planning tools. Our first contribution consists in identifying an interesting special case of WSC which is both significant and more tractable. The special case, which we term "forward effects", is characterized by the fact that every ramification of a web service application involves at least one new constant generated as output by the web service. We show that, in this setting, the reasoning required for belief update simplifies to standard reasoning in the ontology itself. This relates to, and extends, current notions of "message-based" WSC, where the need for belief update is removed by a strong (often implicit or informal) assumption of "locality" of the individual messages. We clarify the computational properties of the forward effects case, and point out a strong relation to standard notions of planning under uncertainty, suggesting that effective tools for the latter can be successfully adapted to address the former. Furthermore, we identify a significant sub-case, named "strictly forward effects", where an actual compilation into planning under uncertainty exists. This enables us to exploit off-the-shelf planning tools to solve message-based WSC in a general form that involves powerful ontologies, and requires reasoning about partial matches between concepts. We provide empirical evidence that this approach may be quite effective, using Conformant-FF as the underlying planner.