Given a Boolean formula $\phi(x)$ in conjunctive normal form (CNF), the density of states counts the number of variable assignments that violate exactly $e$ clauses, for all values of $e$. Thus, the density of states is a histogram of the number of unsatisfied clauses over all possible assignments. This computation generalizes both maximum-satisfiability (MAX-SAT) and model counting problems and not only provides insight into the entire solution space, but also yields a measure for the \emph{hardness} of the problem instance. Consequently, in real-world scenarios, this problem is typically infeasible even when using state-of-the-art algorithms. While finding an exact answer to this problem is a computationally intensive task, we propose a novel approach for estimating density of states based on the concentration of measure inequalities. The methodology results in a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO), which is particularly amenable to quantum annealing-based solutions. We present the overall approach and compare results from the D-Wave quantum annealer against the best-known classical algorithms such as the Hamze-de Freitas-Selby (HFS) algorithm and satisfiability modulo theory (SMT) solvers.

Theoretical computer science has been a vibrant part of computing research in India for the past 30 years. India has always had a strong mathematical tradition. One could also argue that in the 1980s and 1990s, theory offered a unique opportunity to keep up with international research in computing despite limited access to state-of-the-art hardware. The Annual International Conference Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS) was launched in 1981. FSTTCS2 allowed Indian researchers a natural opportunity to interact with leading academics worldwide.

Programming with logic for sophisticated applications must deal with recursion and negation, which have created significant challenges in logic, leading to many different, conflicting semantics of rules. This paper describes a unified language, DA logic, for design and analysis logic, based on the unifying founded semantics and constraint semantics, that support the power and ease of programming with different intended semantics. The key idea is to provide meta constraints, support the use of uncertain information in the form of either undefined values or possible combinations of values, and promote the use of knowledge units that can be instantiated by any new predicates, including predicates with additional arguments.

One person who followed up with me after my session wasn't familiar with the research area but gained an appreciation for the complexity of the problem. When we write software, even in high-level language, we are really doing all the heavy lifting to get computers to do what we want them to do. That is, as humans we still need to work at the level of the machine. Programs required an incredible amount of detail. So, it is challenging to go from high-level goals expressed in natural language, which lacks detail, to actual code.

Marta Kwiatkowska is a co-proposer of the Validate AI Conference. She is Professor of Computing Systems and Fellow of Trinity College, University of Oxford. Prior to this she was Professor in the School of Computer Science at the University of Birmingham, Lecturer at the University of Leicester and Assistant Professor at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow, Poland. Kwiatkowska has made fundamental contributions to the theory and practice of model checking for probabilistic systems, focusing on automated techniques for verification and synthesis from quantitative specifications. More recently, she has been working on safety and robustness verification for neural networks with provable guarantees.

Marta Kwiatkowska is a co-proposer of the Validate AI Conference. She is Professor of Computing Systems and Fellow of Trinity College, University of Oxford. Prior to this she was Professor in the School of Computer Science at the University of Birmingham, Lecturer at the University of Leicester and Assistant Professor at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow, Poland. Kwiatkowska has made fundamental contributions to the theory and practice of model checking for probabilistic systems, focusing on automated techniques for verification and synthesis from quantitative specifications. More recently, she has been working on safety and robustness verification for neural networks with provable guarantees.

Deductive formalisms have been strongly developed in recent years; among them, Answer Set Programming (ASP) gained some momentum, and has been lately fruitfully employed in many real-world scenarios. Nonetheless, in spite of a large number of success stories in relevant application areas, and even in industrial contexts, deductive reasoning cannot be considered the ultimate, comprehensive solution to AI; indeed, in several contexts, other approaches result to be more useful. Typical Bioinformatics tasks, for instance classification, are currently carried out mostly by Machine Learning (ML) based solutions. In this paper, we focus on the relatively new problem of analyzing the evolution of neurological disorders. In this context, ML approaches already demonstrated to be a viable solution for classification tasks; here, we show how ASP can play a relevant role in the brain evolution simulation task. In particular, we propose a general and extensible framework to support physicians and researchers at understanding the complex mechanisms underlying neurological disorders. The framework relies on a combined use of ML and ASP, and is general enough to be applied in several other application scenarios, which are outlined in the paper.

Three variants of Kurt G\"odel's ontological argument, as proposed byDana Scott, C. Anthony Anderson and Melvin Fitting, are encoded and rigorously assessed on the computer. In contrast to Scott's version of G\"odel's argument, the two variants contributed by Anderson and Fitting avoid modal collapse. Although they appear quite different on a cursory reading, they are in fact closely related, as our computer-supported formal analysis (conducted in the proof assistant system Isabelle/HOL) reveals. Key to our formal analysis is the utilization of suitably adapted notions of (modal) ultrafilters, and a careful distinction between extensions and intensions of positive properties.

The vast majority of work within formal methods (the area of computer science that reasons about hardware and software as mathematical objects in order to prove they have certain properties) has involved analysing models that are fully specified by the user. More and more, however, critical parts of algorithmic pipelines are constituted by models that are instead learnt from data using artificial intelligence (AI). The task of analysing these kinds of models presents fresh challenges for the formal methods community and has seen exciting progress in recent years. While scalability is still an important, open research problem -- with state-of-the-art machine learning (ML) models often having millions of parameters --in this post we give an introduction to the paradigm by analysing two simple yet powerful learnt models using Imandra, a cloud-native automated reasoning engine bringing formal methods to the masses! Verifying properties of learnt models is a difficult task, but is becoming increasingly important in order to make sure that the AI systems using such models are safe, robust, and explainable.

Security games are an example of a successful real-world application of game theory. The paper defines blameworthiness of the defender and the attacker in security games using the principle of alternative possibilities and provides a sound and complete logical system for reasoning about blameworthiness in such games. Introduction In this paper we study the properties of blameworthiness in security games (von Stackelberg 1934). Security games are used for canine airport patrol (Pita et al. 2008; Jain et al. 2010), airport passenger screening (Brown et al. 2016), protecting endangered animals and fish stocks (Fang, Stone, and Tambe 2015), U.S. Coast Guard port patrol (Sinha et al. 2018; An, Tambe, and Sinha 2016), and randomized deployment of U.S. air marshals (Sinha et al. 2018). Defender \Attacker Terminal 1 Terminal 2 Terminal 1 20 120 Terminal 2 200 16 Figure 1: Expected Human Losses in Security Game G 1. As an example, consider a security game G 1 in which a defender is trying to protect two terminals in an airport from an attacker. Due to limited resources, the defender can patrol only one terminal at a given time. If the defender chooses to patrol Terminal 1 and the attacker chooses to attack Terminal 2, then the human losses at Terminal 2 are estimated at 120, see Figure 1. However, if the defender chooses to patrol Terminal 2 while the attacker still chooses to attack Terminal 2, then the expected number of the human losses at Terminal 2 is only 16, see Figure 1. Generally speaking, the goal of the defender is to minimize human losses, while the goal of the attacker is to maximize them. However, the utility functions in security games usually take into account not only the human losses, but also the cost to protect and to attack the target to the defender and the attacker respectively.