We study a natural variant of the implicational fragment of propositional logic. Its formulas are pairs of conjunctions of positive literals, related together by an implicational-like connective; the semantics of this sort of implication is defined in terms of a threshold on a conditional probability of the consequent, given the antecedent: we are dealing with what the data analysis community calls confidence of partial implications or association rules. Existing studies of redundancy among these partial implications have characterized so far only entailment from one premise and entailment from two premises, both in the stand-alone case and in the case of presence of additional classical implications (this is what we call "relative entailment"). By exploiting a previously noted alternative view of the entailment in terms of linear programming duality, we characterize exactly the cases of entailment from arbitrary numbers of premises, again both in the stand-alone case and in the case of presence of additional classical implications. As a result, we obtain decision algorithms of better complexity; additionally, for each potential case of entailment, we identify a critical confidence threshold and show that it is, actually, intrinsic to each set of premises and antecedent of the conclusion.

The ever-growing complexity of today's soft-and hardware makes testing both an indispensable necessityand a challenging task. At the given scale, manual testing is unfeasible, which raises the urge for automated approaches. At the same time, the ongoing digitalization ofsecurity-and safety-centric applications requires exhaustive verification of key properties. A field of research that tackles these problems and has yielded sophisticating results is that of model-based testing [Bro 05] and model checking [BK08]. Formal verification methods, depending on the scenario, allow the automated generation of tests or the automated evaluation of test properties. Being based on formal models, a successful verification is also able to provably guarantee certain properties of the system under testing. Key to a successful application of these techniques is a formal specification of the target system. This requirement, however, poses a problem to many real-world applications: Thelack of formal specifications for software or hardware hinders the employment of formal verification methods. Creating formal specifications for soft-or hardware components is not only a tedious task but also prone to errors.

Transportation systems serve the people in essence, in this study we focus in traffic information related to violation events to respond to safety requirements of the cities. Traffic violation events have an important role in city safety awareness and secure travel. In this work, we describe the use of knowledge discovery from traffic violation reports in combination with demographics approach using inductive logic programming to automatically extract knowledge about traffic violation behavior and their impact on the environment.

AGM contraction and revision assume an underlying logic that contains propositional logic. Consequently, this assumption excludes many useful logics such as the Horn fragment of propositional logic and most description logics. Our goal in this paper is to generalise AGM contraction and revision to (near-)arbitrary fragments of classical first-order logic. To this end, we first define a very general logic that captures these fragments. In so doing, we make the modest assumptions that a logic contains conjunction and that information is expressed by closed formulas or sentences. The resulting logic is called first-order conjunctive logic or FC logic for short. We then take as the point of departure the AGM approach of constructing contraction functions through epistemic entrenchment, that is the entrenchment-based contraction. We redefine entrenchment-based contraction in ways that apply to any FC logic, which we call FC contraction. We prove a representation theorem showing its compliance with all the AGM contraction postulates except for the controversial recovery postulate. We also give methods for constructing revision functions through epistemic entrenchment which we call FC revision; which also apply to any FC logic. We show that if the underlying FC logic contains tautologies then FC revision complies with all the AGM revision postulates. Finally, in the context of FC logic, we provide three methods for generating revision functions via a variant of the Levi Identity, which we call contraction, withdrawal and cut generated revision, and explore the notion of revision equivalence. We show that withdrawal and cut generated revision coincide with FC revision and so does contraction generated revision under a finiteness condition.

Some techniques for proving correctness of programs which alter data structures.

In several different applications, including data transformation and entity resolution, rules are used to capture aspects of knowledge about the application at hand. Often, a large set of such rules is generated automatically or semi-automatically, and the challenge is to refine the encapsulated knowledge by selecting a subset of rules based on the expected operational behavior of the rules on available data. In this paper, we carry out a systematic complexity-theoretic investigation of the following rule selection problem: given a set of rules specified by Horn formulas, and a pair of an input database and an output database, find a subset of the rules that minimizes the total error, that is, the number of false positive and false negative errors arising from the selected rules. We first establish computational hardness results for the decision problems underlying this minimization problem, as well as upper and lower bounds for its approximability. We then investigate a bi-objective optimization version of the rule selection problem in which both the total error and the size of the selected rules are taken into account. We show that testing for membership in the Pareto front of this bi-objective optimization problem is DP-complete. Finally, we show that a similar DP-completeness result holds for a bi-level optimization version of the rule selection problem, where one minimizes first the total error and then the size.

Answer set programming is a prominent declarative programming paradigm used in formulating combinatorial search problems and implementing distinct knowledge representation formalisms. It is common that several related and yet substantially different answer set programs exist for a given problem. Sometimes these encodings may display significantly different performance. Uncovering {\em precise formal} links between these programs is often important and yet far from trivial. This paper claims the correctness of a number of interesting program rewritings.

In Knowledge Representation, it is crucial that knowledge engineers have a good understanding of the formal expressions that they write. What formal expressions state intuitively about the domain of discourse is studied in the theory of the informal semantics of a logic. In this paper we study the informal semantics of Answer Set Programming. The roots of answer set programming lie in the language of Extended Logic Programming, which was introduced initially as an epistemic logic for default and autoepistemic reasoning. In 1999, the seminal papers on answer set programming proposed to use this logic for a different purpose, namely, to model and solve search problems. Currently, the language is used primarily in this new role. However, the original epistemic intuitions lose their explanatory relevance in this new context. How answer set programs are connected to the specifications of problems they model is more easily explained in a classical Tarskian semantics, in which models correspond to possible worlds, rather than to belief states of an epistemic agent. In this paper, we develop a new theory of the informal semantics of answer set programming, which is formulated in the Tarskian setting and based on Frege's compositionality principle. It differs substantially from the earlier epistemic theory of informal semantics, providing a different view on the meaning of the connectives in answer set programming and on its relation to other logics, in particular classical logic.

Latent factor models are increasingly popular for modeling multi-relational knowledge graphs. By their vectorial nature, it is not only hard to interpret why this class of models works so well, but also to understand where they fail and how they might be improved. We conduct an experimental survey of state-of-the-art models, not towards a purely comparative end, but as a means to get insight about their inductive abilities. To assess the strengths and weaknesses of each model, we create simple tasks that exhibit first, atomic properties of binary relations, and then, common inter-relational inference through synthetic genealogies. Based on these experimental results, we propose new research directions to improve on existing models.

Machine learning systems regularly deal with structured data in real-world applications. Unfortunately, such data has been difficult to faithfully represent in a way that most machine learning techniques would expect, i.e. as a real-valued vector of a fixed, pre-specified size. In this work, we introduce a novel approach that compiles structured data into a satisfiability problem which has in its set of solutions at least (and often only) the input data. The satisfiability problem is constructed from constraints which are generated automatically a priori from a given signature, thus trivially allowing for a bag-of-words-esque vector representation of the input to be constructed. The method is demonstrated in two areas, automated reasoning and natural language processing, where it is shown to produce vector representations of natural-language sentences and first-order logic clauses that can be precisely translated back to their original, structured input forms.