Standard approachs to belief change assume that the underlying logic contains classical propositional logic. Recently there has been interest in investigating approaches to belief change, specifically contraction, in which the underlying logic is not as expressive as full propositional logic. In this paper we consider approaches to belief contraction in Horn knowledge bases. We develop two broad approaches for Horn contraction, corresponding to the two major approaches in belief change, based on Horn belief sets and Horn belief bases. We argue that previous approaches, which have taken Horn remainder sets as a starting point, have undesirable properties, and moreover that not all desirable Horn contraction functions are captured by these approaches. This is shown in part by examining model-theoretic considerations involving Horn contraction. For Horn belief set contraction, we develop an account based in terms of weak remainder sets. Maxichoice and partial meet Horn contraction is specified, along with a consideration of package contraction. Following this we consider Horn belief base contraction, in which the underlying knowledge base is not necessarily closed under the Horn consequence relation. Again, approaches to maxichoice and partial meet belief set contraction are developed. In all cases, constructions of the specific operators and sets of postulates are provided, and representation results are obtained. As well, we show that problems arising with earlier work are resolved by these approaches.

We present a formal semantical model to capture action, belief and intention, based on the "database perspective" (Shoham, 2009). We then provide postulates for belief and intention revision, and state a representation theorem relating our postulates to the formal model. Our belief postulates are in the spirit of the AGM theory; the intention postulates stand in rough correspondence with the belief postulates.

We provide two approaches for explaining inconsistency in multi-context systems, where decentralized and heterogeneous system parts interact via nonmonotonic bridge rules. Inconsistencies arise easily in such scenarios, and nonmonotonicity calls for specific methods of inconsistency analysis. Both our approaches characterize inconsistency in terms of involved bridge rules: either by pointing out rules which need to be altered for restoring consistency, or by finding combinations of rules which cause inconsistency. We show duality and modularity properties, give precise complexity characterizations, and provide algorithms for computation using HEX-programs. Our results form a basis for inconsistency management in heterogeneous knowledge integration systems.

Improvement operators is a class of belief change operators that is a generalization of the usual class of iterated belief revision operators. The idea is to relax the success property, so the new information is not necessarily believed after the improvement, but to ensure that its plausibility has increased in the epistemic state. In this paper we explore this large classby defining several different subclasses. In particular, as minimal change is a hallmark of belief change, we study what are the operators that produce the minimal change among several subclasses.

We present a distributed algorithm for computing equilibria of heterogeneous nonmonotonic multi-context systems (MCS). The algorithm can be parametrized to compute only partial equilibria, which can be used for reasoning tasks like query answering or satisfiability checking that need only partial information and not whole belief states. Furthermore, caching is employed to cut redundant solver calls. As a showcase, we instantiate the MCS framework with answer set program contexts. To characterize equilibria of such MCS, we develop notions of loop formulas that enable reductions to the classical satisfiability problem (SAT). Notably, loop formulas for bridge rules between contexts and for the local contexts can be combined to a uniform encoding of an MCS into a (distributed) SAT instance. As a consequence, we can use SAT solvers for belief set building. We demonstrate this approach by an experimental prototype implementation, which uses an off-the-shelf SAT solver.

In this paper, we develop a heuristic, progression based conformant planner, called CNF, which represents belief states by a special type of CNF formulae, called CNF CNF-state. We define a transition function φ CNF for computing the successor belief state resulting from the execution of an action in a belief state and prove that it is sound and complete with respect to the complete semantics defined in the literature for conformant planning. We evaluate the performance of CNF against other state-of-the-art conformant planners and identify the classes of problems where CNF is comparable with other state-of-the-art planners or scales up better than other planners. We also develop a technique called oneof relaxation which helps boost the performance of CNF. We characterize the domains where this technique can be applied and validate this idea by proposing a new set of benchmarks that is really difficult for other planners yet easy for CNF.

Research effort, with its emphasis on evaluation and measurable progress, things began to change. Instead SHRDLU (WIN72) is perhaps the canonical example. of systems whose architecture and vocabulary were The rapid growth of efforts to found the next generation of based on linguistic theory (in this case acoustic phonetics), systems on general-purpose knowledge representation languages new approaches based on statistical modelling and Bayesian (I'm thinking of several varieties of semantic nets, probability emerged and quickly spread. "Every time I fire a from plain to partitioned, as well as KRL, KL-ONE and linguist my system's performance improves" (Fred Jellinek, their successors, ending (not yet, of course) with CYC (See head of speech recognition at IBM, c. 1980, latterly repudiated (BRA08) for all these) stumbled to a halt once their failure by Fred but widely attested). As advanced from resolution theorem provers through a number more and more problems are re-conceived as instances of of stages to the current proliferation of a range of Description the noisy channel model, the empiricist paradigm continually Logic'reasoners'; Whereas in the 1970s and 1980s there grew, so did the need to manage the impact of change and was real energy and optimism at the interface between computational conflict: enter'truth maintenance', subsequently renamed and theoretical linguistics, the overwhelming success'reason maintenance'. While still using some of But outflanking these'normal science' advances of AI, the terminology of linguistic theory, computational linguistics the paradigm shifters were coming up fast on the outside: practioners are increasingly detached from theory itself, over the last ten years machine learning has spread from which has suffered a, perhaps connected, loss of energy and small specialist niches such as speech recognition to become sense of progress.

The paper investigates parameterized approximate message-passing schemes that are based on bounded inference and are inspired by Pearls 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.

As historically acknowledged in the Reasoning about Actions and Change community, intuitiveness of a logical domain description cannot be fully automated. Moreover, like any other logical theory, action theories may also evolve, and thus knowledge engineers need revision methods to help in accommodating new incoming information about the behavior of actions in an adequate manner. The present work is about changing action domain descriptions in multimodal logic. Its contribution is threefold: first we revisit the semantics of action theory contraction proposed in previous work, giving more robust operators that express minimal change based on a notion of distance between Kripke-models. Second we give algorithms for syntactical action theory contraction and establish their correctness with respect to our semantics for those action theories that satisfy a principle of modularity investigated in previous work. Since modularity can be ensured for every action theory and, as we show here, needs to be computed at most once during the evolution of a domain description, it does not represent a limitation at all to the method here studied. Finally we state AGM-like postulates for action theory contraction and assess the behavior of our operators with respect to them. Moreover, we also address the revision counterpart of action theory change, showing that it benefits from our semantics for contraction.

We propose a new approach to the analysis of Loopy Belief Propagation (LBP) by establishing a formula that connects the Hessian of the Bethe free energy with the edge zeta function. The formula has a number of theoretical implications on LBP. It is applied to give a sufficient condition that the Hessian of the Bethe free energy is positive definite, which shows non-convexity for graphs with multiple cycles. The formula clarifies the relation between the local stability of a fixed point of LBP and local minima of the Bethe free energy. We also propose a new approach to the uniqueness of LBP fixed point, and show various conditions of uniqueness.