Reinforcement learning (RL) is a popular approach for robotic path planning in uncertain environments. However, the control policies trained for an RL agent crucially depend on user-defined, state-based reward functions. Poorly designed rewards can lead to policies that do get maximal rewards but fail to satisfy desired task objectives or are unsafe. There are several examples of the use of formal languages such as temporal logics and automata to specify high-level task specifications for robots (in lieu of Markovian rewards). Recent efforts have focused on inferring state-based rewards from formal specifications; here, the goal is to provide (probabilistic) guarantees that the policy learned using RL (with the inferred rewards) satisfies the high-level formal specification. A key drawback of several of these techniques is that the rewards that they infer are sparse: the agent receives positive rewards only upon completion of the task and no rewards otherwise. This naturally leads to poor convergence properties and high variance during RL. In this work, we propose using formal specifications in the form of symbolic automata: these serve as a generalization of both bounded-time temporal logic-based specifications as well as automata. Furthermore, our use of symbolic automata allows us to define non-sparse potential-based rewards which empirically shape the reward surface, leading to better convergence during RL. We also show that our potential-based rewarding strategy still allows us to obtain the policy that maximizes the satisfaction of the given specification.

Learning arguments is highly relevant to the field of explainable artificial intelligence. It is a family of symbolic machine learning techniques that is particularly human-interpretable. These techniques learn a set of arguments as an intermediate representation. Arguments are small rules with exceptions that can be chained to larger arguments for making predictions or decisions. We investigate the learning of arguments, specifically the learning of arguments from a 'case model' proposed by Verheij [34]. The case model in Verheij's approach are cases or scenarios in a legal setting. The number of cases in a case model are relatively low. Here, we investigate whether Verheij's approach can be used for learning arguments from other types of data sets with a much larger number of instances. We compare the learning of arguments from a case model with the HeRO algorithm [15] and learning a decision tree.

Statistical relational AI and probabilistic logic programming have so far mostly focused on discrete probabilistic models. The reasons for this is that one needs to provide constructs to succinctly model the independencies in such models, and also provide efficient inference. Three types of independencies are important to represent and exploit for scalable inference in hybrid models: conditional independencies elegantly modeled in Bayesian networks, context-specific independencies naturally represented by logical rules, and independencies amongst attributes of related objects in relational models succinctly expressed by combining rules. This paper introduces a hybrid probabilistic logic programming language, DC#, which integrates distributional clauses' syntax and semantics principles of Bayesian logic programs. It represents the three types of independencies qualitatively. More importantly, we also introduce the scalable inference algorithm FO-CS-LW for DC#. FO-CS-LW is a first-order extension of the context-specific likelihood weighting algorithm (CS-LW), a novel sampling method that exploits conditional independencies and context-specific independencies in ground models.

Algorithms based on deep network models are being used for many pattern recognition and decision-making tasks in robotics and AI. Training these models requires a large labeled dataset and considerable computational resources, which are not readily available in many domains. Also, it is difficult to explore the internal representations and reasoning mechanisms of these models. As a step towards addressing the underlying knowledge representation, reasoning, and learning challenges, the architecture described in this paper draws inspiration from research in cognitive systems. As a motivating example, we consider an assistive robot trying to reduce clutter in any given scene by reasoning about the occlusion of objects and stability of object configurations in an image of the scene. In this context, our architecture incrementally learns and revises a grounding of the spatial relations between objects and uses this grounding to extract spatial information from input images. Non-monotonic logical reasoning with this information and incomplete commonsense domain knowledge is used to make decisions about stability and occlusion. For images that cannot be processed by such reasoning, regions relevant to the tasks at hand are automatically identified and used to train deep network models to make the desired decisions. Image regions used to train the deep networks are also used to incrementally acquire previously unknown state constraints that are merged with the existing knowledge for subsequent reasoning. Experimental evaluation performed using simulated and real-world images indicates that in comparison with baselines based just on deep networks, our architecture improves reliability of decision making and reduces the effort involved in training data-driven deep network models.

In online advertising, search engines sell ad placements for keywords continuously through auctions. This problem can be seen as an infinitely repeated game since the auction is executed whenever a user performs a query with the keyword. As advertisers may frequently change their bids, the game will have a large set of equilibria with potentially complex strategies. In this paper, we propose the use of natural strategies for reasoning in such setting as they are processable by artificial agents with limited memory and/or computational power as well as understandable by human users. To reach this goal, we introduce a quantitative version of Strategy Logic with natural strategies in the setting of imperfect information. In a first step, we show how to model strategies for repeated keyword auctions and take advantage of the model for proving properties evaluating this game. In a second step, we study the logic in relation to the distinguishing power, expressivity, and model-checking complexity for strategies with and without recall.

This paper presents a probabilistic extension of the well-known cellular automaton, Game of Life. In Game of Life, cells are placed in a grid and then watched as they evolve throughout subsequent generations, as dictated by the rules of the game. In our extension, called ProbLife, these rules now have probabilities associated with them. Instead of cells being either dead or alive, they are denoted by their chance to live. After presenting the rules of ProbLife and its underlying characteristics, we show a concrete implementation in ProbLog, a probabilistic logic programming system. We use this to generate different images, as a form of rule-based generative art.

It is widely acknowledged that transparency of automated decision making is crucial for deployability of intelligent systems, and explaining the reasons why some decisions are "good" and some are not is a way to achieving this transparency. We consider two variants of decision making, where "good" decisions amount to alternatives (i) meeting "most" goals, and (ii) meeting "most preferred" goals. We then define, for each variant and notion of "goodness" (corresponding to a number of existing notions in the literature), explanations in two formats, for justifying the selection of an alternative to audiences with differing needs and competences: lean explanations, in terms of goals satisfied and, for some notions of "goodness", alternative decisions, and argumentative explanations, reflecting the decision process leading to the selection, while corresponding to the lean explanations. To define argumentative explanations, we use assumption-based argumentation (ABA), a well-known form of structured argumentation. Specifically, we define ABA frameworks such that "good" decisions are admissible ABA arguments and draw argumentative explanations from dispute trees sanctioning this admissibility. Finally, we instantiate our overall framework for explainable decision-making to accommodate connections between goals and decisions in terms of decision graphs incorporating defeasible and non-defeasible information.

Most work on physical reasoning, both in artificial intelligence and in cognitive science, has focused on closed-world reasoning, in which it is assumed that the problem specification specifies all relevant objects and substance, all their relations in an initial situation, and all exogenous events. However, in many situations, it is important to do open-world reasoning; that is, making valid conclusions from very incomplete information. We have implemented in Prolog an open-world reasoner for a toy microworld of containers that can be loaded, unloaded, sealed, unsealed, carried, and dumped.

Human beliefs change, but so do the concepts that underpin them. The recent Abduction, Belief Revision and Conceptual Change (ABC) repair system combines several methods from automated theory repair to expand, contract, or reform logical structures representing conceptual knowledge in artificial agents. In this paper we focus on conceptual change: repair not only of the membership of logical concepts, such as what animals can fly, but also concepts themselves, such that birds may be divided into flightless and flying birds, by changing the signature of the logical theory used to represent them. We offer a method for automatically evaluating entrenchment in the signature of a Datalog theory, in order to constrain automated theory repair to succinct and intuitive outcomes. Formally, signature entrenchment measures the inferential contributions of every logical language element used to express conceptual knowledge, i.e., predicates and the arguments, ranking possible repairs to retain valuable logical concepts and reject redundant or implausible alternatives. This quantitative measurement of signature entrenchment offers a guide to the plausibility of conceptual changes, which we aim to contrast with human judgements of concept entrenchment in future work.

This paper introduces a formal definition of a Cyber-Physical System (CPS) in the spirit of the CPS Framework proposed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). It shows that using this definition, various problems related to concerns in a CPS can be precisely formalized and implemented using Answer Set Programming (ASP). These include problems related to the dependency or conflicts between concerns, how to mitigate an issue, and what the most suitable mitigation strategy for a given issue would be. It then shows how ASP can be used to develop an implementation that addresses the aforementioned problems. The paper concludes with a discussion of the potentials of the proposed methodologies.