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.

Following the recent trend of studying the theory of belief revision under the Horn fragment of propo- sitional logic this paper develops a fully charac- terised Horn contraction which is analogous to the traditional transitively relational partial meet contraction [Alchourron et al., 1985]. This Horn con- traction extends the partial meet Horn contraction studied in [Delgrande and Wassermann, 2010] so that it is guided by a transitive relation that models the ordering of plausibility over sets of beliefs.

As a doxastic counterpart to epistemic logic based on S5 we study the modal logic KSD that can be viewed as an approach to modelling a kind of objective and fair belief. We apply KSD to the problem of minimal belief and develop an alterna- tive approach to nonmonotonic modal logic using a weaker concept of expansion. This corresponds to a certain minimal kind of KSD model and yields a new type of nonmonotonic doxastic reasonin

Despite the importance of propositional logic in artificial intelligence, the notion of language independence in the propositional setting (not to be confound with syntax independence) has not received much attention so far. In this paper, we define language independence for a propositional operator as robustness w.r.t.symbol translation. We provide a number of characterizations results for such translations. We motivate the need to focus on symbol translations of restricted types, and identify several families of interest. We identify the computational complexity of recognizing symbol translations from those families. Finally, as a case study, we investigate the robustness of belief revision/merging operators w.r.t. translations of different types. It turns out that rational belief revision/merging operators are not guaranteed to offer the most basic (yet non-trivial) form of language independence; operators based on the Hamming distance do not suffer from this drawback but are less robust than operators based on the drastic distance.

Existing belief merging operators take advantage of all the models from the bases, including those contradicting the integrity constraints. In this paper, we show that this is not suited to every merging scenario. We study the case when the bases are "rationalized" with respect to the integrity constraints during the merging process. We define in formal terms several independence conditions for merging operators and show how they interact with the standard IC postulates for belief merging. Especially, we give an independence-based axiomatic characterization of a distance-based operator.

Recent years have seen a lot of work towards extending the established AGM belief revision theory with respect to iterating revision, preserving conditional beliefs, and handling sets of propositions as new information. In particular, novel postulates like independence and evidence retainment have been brought forth as new standards for revising epistemic states by (sets of) propositional information. In this paper, we propose a constructive approach for revising epistemic states by sets of (propositional and conditional) beliefs that combines ideas from nonmonotonic reasoning with conditional belief revision. We also propose a novel principle called enforcement that covers both independence and evidence retainment, and we show our revision operator to comply with major postulates from the literature. Moreover, we point out the relevance of our approach for default reasoning.