We analyze the patterns of autistic reasoning while performing planning tasks. The formalism of non-monotonic logic of defaults is used to simulate the autistic decision-making while adjusting an action to a context. Our current main finding is that while people with autism may be able to process single default rules, they have a characteristic difficulty in cases where multiple default rules conflict. Even though default reasoning was intended to simulate the reasoning of typical human subjects, it turns out that following the operational semantics of default reasoning in a literal way leads to the peculiarities of autistic behavior observed in the literature.

We consider the general problem of finding the minimum weight $\bm$-matching on arbitrary graphs. We prove that, whenever the linear programming (LP) relaxation of the problem has no fractional solutions, then the belief propagation (BP) algorithm converges to the correct solution. We also show that when the LP relaxation has a fractional solution then the BP algorithm can be used to solve the LP relaxation. Our proof is based on the notion of graph covers and extends the analysis of (Bayati-Shah-Sharma 2005 and Huang-Jebara 2007}. These results are notable in the following regards: (1) It is one of a very small number of proofs showing correctness of BP without any constraint on the graph structure. (2) Variants of the proof work for both synchronous and asynchronous BP; it is the first proof of convergence and correctness of an asynchronous BP algorithm for a combinatorial optimization problem.

This work proposes new approaches to contingent planning using alternative belief state representations extended from those in conformant planning and a new AND/OR forward search algorithm, called PrAO, for contingent solutions. Each representation was implemented in a new contingent planner. The important role of belief state representation has been confirmed by the fact that our planners all outperform other stateof- the-art planners on most benchmarks and the comparison of their performances varies across all the benchmarks even using the same search algorithm PrAO and same unsophisticated heuristic scheme. The work identifies the properties of each representation method that affect the performance.

Model-based diagnosis (MBD) uses an abstraction of system to diagnose possible faulty functions of an underlying system. To improve the solution efficiency for multi-fault diagnosis problems, especially for large scale systems, this paper proposes a method to induce reasonable diagnosis solutions, under coarse diagnosis, by using the relationships between system outputs and components. Compared to existing diagnosis methods, the proposed framework only needs to consider associations between outputs and components by using an assumption-based truth maintenance system (ATMS) [de Kleer 1986] to obtain correlation components for every output node. As a result, our method significantly reduces the number of variables required for model diagnosis, which makes it suitable for large scale circuit systems.

This paper compares in depth the effectiveness of two conjunctive belief state representations in contingent planning: prime implicates and minimal CNF, a compact form of CNF formulae, which were initially proposed in conformant planning research (To et al. 2010a; 2010b). Similar to the development of the contingent planner CNFct for minimal CNF (To et al. 2011b), the present paper extends the progression function for the prime implicate representation in (To et al. 2010b) for computing successor belief states in the presence of incomplete information to handle non-deterministic and sensing actions required in contingent planning. The idea was instantiated in a new contingent planner, called PIct, using the same AND/OR search algorithm and heuristic function as those for CNFct. The experiments show that, like CNFct, PIct performs very well in a wide range of benchmarks. The study investigates the advantages and disadvantages of the two planners and identifies the properties of each representation method that affect the performance.

Dependency networks are a compelling alternative to Bayesian networks for learning joint probability distributions from data and using them to compute probabilities. A dependency network consists of a set of conditional probability distributions, each representing the probability of a single variable given its Markov blanket. Running Gibbs sampling with these conditional distributions produces a joint distribution that can be used to answer queries, but suffers from the traditional slowness of sampling-based inference. In this paper, we observe that the mean field update equation can be applied to dependency networks, even though the conditional probability distributions may be inconsistent with each other. In experiments with learning and inference on 12 datasets, we demonstrate that mean field inference in dependency networks offers similar accuracy to Gibbs sampling but with orders of magnitude improvements in speed. Compared to Bayesian networks learned on the same data, dependency networks offer higher accuracy at greater amounts of evidence. Furthermore, mean field inference is consistently more accurate in dependency networks than in Bayesian networks learned on the same data.

This paper presents a framework for relevance-based belief change in propositional Horn logic. We firstly establish a parallel interpolation theorem for Horn logic and show that Parikh's Finest Splitting Theorem holds with Horn formulae. By reformulating Parikh's relevance criterion in the setting of Horn belief change, we construct a relevance-based partial meet Horn contraction operator and provide a representation theorem for the operator. Interestingly, we find that this contraction operator can be fully characterised by Delgrande and Wassermann's postulates for partial meet Horn contraction as well as Parikh's relevance postulate without requiring any change on the postulates, which is qualitatively different from the case in classical propositional logic.

Planning under uncertainty is one of the most general and hardest problems considered in the area of planning. Uncertainty can take the form of incomplete information, wrong information, multiple action outcomes, and varying action durations. My doctoral thesis concentrates on planning with incomplete knowledge and multiple action outcomes, specifically conformant planning and contingent planning. These problems have attracted the attention of many researchers, resulting in numerous sophisticated planners of different approaches. However, those planners cannot scale up well on the size of problems, mostly due to the representation methods employed in the planners. The doctoral research work provides a systematic methodology for dealing with planning under uncertainty, focusing on the representation of belief states that can be used in a forward search paradigm in the belief space for solutions. A good representation should be compact so that a planner implementing it can perform and scale up well as the larger the formulae, the more the computation and the more the memory consumption (i.e., the slower the system and the less the scalability). On the other hand, it should also have properties that allow for definition of an efficient transition function for computing successor belief states, e.g., checking satisfaction in a DNF formula is easy. Defining a direct complete transition function in presence of incomplete information for a general representation, other than the belief state, is particularly hard due to conditional action effects. To address this, I propose a generic abstract algorithm, called GAA, for defining such function given an arbitrary representation. Using the GAA algorithm, my doctoral thesis investigates the properties of different logical formulae and their applicability in planning under uncertainty as a belief state representation. The results obtained so far are very promissing as the research work developed several highly competitive planners which outperform other state-of-the-art planners in most benchmarks available in the literature.

Model checking is one of the most effective techniques in automated system verification. Although this technique can handle complex verifications, model checking tools usually do not give any suggestions on how to repair inconsistent system models. In this paper, we show that approaches developed to update models of Computation Tree Logic (CTL) cannot deal with all kinds of changes. We introduce the concept of CTL model revision: an approach based on belief revision to handle system inconsistency in a static context.

Replanning via determinization is a recent, popular approach for onlineplanning in MDPs. In this paper we adapt this idea to classical,non-stochastic domains with partial information and sensing actions. At eachstep we generate a candidate plan which solves a classical planning probleminduced by the original problem. We execute this plan as long as it is safeto do so. When this is no longer the case, we replan.The classical planning problem we generate is based on the $T_0$ translation, in which the classical state captures the knowledge state of theagent. We overcome the non-determinism in sensing actions, and the large domain size introduced by $T_0$ by using state sampling. Our planner also employs a novel, lazy, regression-based method for querying the belief state.