We present ASP Modulo `Space-Time', a declarative representational and computational framework to perform commonsense reasoning about regions with both spatial and temporal components. Supported are capabilities for mixed qualitative-quantitative reasoning, consistency checking, and inferring compositions of space-time relations; these capabilities combine and synergise for applications in a range of AI application areas where the processing and interpretation of spatio-temporal data is crucial. The framework and resulting system is the only general KR-based method for declaratively reasoning about the dynamics of `space-time' regions as first-class objects. We present an empirical evaluation (with scalability and robustness results), and include diverse application examples involving interpretation and control tasks.

In recent years, we have witnessed a blossoming of research proposals addressing thechallenges in reasoning about action and change in domains that include an agent operatingin a multi-agent setting. In particular, the recent emphasis has been on dealing with domains that involve agents reasoning not only about the state of the world but also about the knowledge andbeliefs of other agents. An open challenge is the management of conflicting and incorrectbeliefs. This paper seeks to introduce a solution to this through the use of doxastic attitudes. Built on top of the action language mA+, we extend the transition functions of an agent to include this idea of attitudes and showcase how these work in two different examples.

In the present paper we describe the technology for translating algorithmic descriptions of discrete functions to SAT. The proposed methods and algorithms of translation are aimed at application to the problems of SAT-based cryptanalysis. In the theoretical part of the paper we justify the main principles of general reduction to SAT for discrete functions from a class containing the majority of functions employed in cryptography. Based on these principles we describe the Transalg software system, developed with SAT-based cryptanalysis specifics in mind. We show the results of applications of Transalg to construction of a number of attacks on various cryptographic functions. Some of the corresponding attacks are state of the art. In the paper we also present the vast experimental data, obtained using the SAT-solvers that took first places at the SAT-competitions in the recent several years.

In this paper, we introduce a novel algorithm to solve projected model counting (PMC). PMC asks to count solutions of a Boolean formula with respect to a given set of projected variables, where multiple solutions that are identical when restricted to the projected variables count as only one solution. Our algorithm exploits small treewidth of the primal graph of the input instance. It runs in time $O({2^{2^{k+4}} n^2})$ where k is the treewidth and n is the input size of the instance. In other words, we obtain that the problem PMC is fixed-parameter tractable when parameterized by treewidth. Further, we take the exponential time hypothesis (ETH) into consideration and establish lower bounds of bounded treewidth algorithms for PMC, yielding asymptotically tight runtime bounds of our algorithm.

State-of-the-art model counters are based on exhaustive DPLL algorithms, and have been successfully used in probabilistic reasoning, one of the key problems in AI. In this article, we present a new exhaustive DPLL algorithm with a formal semantics, a proof of correctness, and a modular design. The modular design is based on the separation of the core model counting algorithm from SAT solving techniques. We also show that the trace of our algorithm belongs to the language of Sentential Decision Diagrams (SDDs), which is a subset of Decision-DNNFs, the trace of existing state-of-the-art model counters. Still, our experimental analysis shows comparable results against state-of-the-art model counters. Furthermore, we obtain the first top-down SDD compiler, and show orders-of-magnitude improvements in SDD construction time against the existing bottom-up SDD compiler.

We develop a novel framework that aims to create bridges between the computational social choice and the database management communities. This framework enriches the tasks currently supported in computational social choice with relational database context, thus making it possible to formulate sophisticated queries about voting rules, candidates, voters, issues, and positions. At the conceptual level, we give rigorous semantics to queries in this framework by introducing the notions of necessary answers and possible answers to queries. At the technical level, we embark on an investigation of the computational complexity of the necessary answers. We establish a number of results about the complexity of the necessary answers of conjunctive queries involving positional scoring rules that contrast sharply with earlier results about the complexity of the necessary winners.

Department of Philosophy, Peking University In standard epistemic logic, agent names are usually assumed to be common knowledge. This is unreasonable for various applications. Inspired by term modal logic and assignment operators in dynamic logic, we introduce a lightweight modal predicate logic whose names are not rigid. The language can handle various de dicto /de re distinctions in a natural way. We show the decidability of the logic over arbitrary models and give a complete axiomatisation over S5 models.

In this position paper, we describe our vision of the future of machine programming through a categorical examination of three pillars of research. Those pillars are: (i) intention, (ii) invention, and(iii) adaptation. Intention emphasizes advancements in the human-to-computer and computer-to-machine-learning interfaces. Invention emphasizes the creation or refinement of algorithms or core hardware and software building blocks through machine learning (ML). Adaptation emphasizes advances in the use of ML-based constructs to autonomously evolve software.

The classical view of epistemic logic is that an agent knows all the logical consequences of their knowledge base. This assumption of logical omniscience is often unrealistic and makes reasoning computationally intractable. One approach to avoid logical omniscience is to limit reasoning to a certain belief level, which intuitively measures the reasoning "depth." This paper investigates the computational complexity of reasoning with belief levels. First we show that while reasoning remains tractable if the level is constant, the complexity jumps to PSPACE-complete -- that is, beyond classical reasoning -- when the belief level is part of the input. Then we further refine the picture using parameterized complexity theory to investigate how the belief level and the number of non-logical symbols affect the complexity.