We present ReAct!, an interactive tool for high-level reasoning for cognitive robotic applications. ReAct! enables robotic researchers to describe robots' actions and change in dynamic domains, without having to know about the syntactic and semantic details of the underlying formalism in advance, and solve planning problems using state-of-the-art automated reasoners, without having to learn about their input/output language or usage. In particular, ReAct! can be used to represent sophisticated dynamic domains that feature concurrency, indirect effects of actions, and state/transition constraints. It allows for embedding externally defined calculations (e.g., checking for collision-free continuous trajectories) into representations of hybrid domains that require a tight integration of (discrete) high-level reasoning with (continuous) geometric reasoning. ReAct! also enables users to solve planning problems that involve complex goals. Such variety of utilities are useful for robotic researchers to work on interesting and challenging domains, ranging from service robotics to cognitive factories. ReAct! provides sample formalizations of some action domains (e.g., multi-agent path planning, Tower of Hanoi), as well as dynamic simulations of plans computed by a state-of-the-art automated reasoner (e.g., a SAT solver or an ASP solver).

The combined approach of the Qualitative Reasoning and Probabilistic Functions for the knowledge representation is proposed. The method aims at represent uncertain, qualitative knowledge that is essential for the moving blocks task's execution. The attempt to formalize the commonsense knowledge is performed with the Situation Calculus language for reasoning and robot's beliefs representation. The method is implemented in the Prolog programming language and tested for a specific simulated scenario. In most cases the implementation enables us to solve a given task, i.e., move blocks to desired positions. The example of robot's reasoning and main parts of the implemented program's code are presented.

A cognitive robot may face failures during the execution of its actions in the physical world. In this paper, we investigate how robots can ensure robustness by gaining experience on action executions, and we propose a lifelong experimental learning method. We use Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) as the learning method to frame new hypotheses. ILP provides first-order logic representations of the derived hypotheses that are useful for reasoning and planning processes. Furthermore, it can use background knowledge to represent more advanced rules. Partially specified world states can also be easily represented in these rules. All these advantages of ILP make this approach superior to attribute-based learning approaches. Experience gained through incremental learning is used as a guide to future decisions of the robot for robust execution. The results on our Pioneer 3DX robot reveal that the hypotheses framed for failure cases are sound and ensure safety in future tasks of the robot.

In this paper, we consider the problem of learning commonsenseknowledge in the form of first-order rules from incomplete and noisynatural-language extractions produced by an off-the-shelf informationextraction (IE) system. Much of the information conveyed in text mustbe inferred from what is explicitly stated since easily inferablefacts are rarely mentioned. The proposed rule learner accounts forthis phenomenon by learning rules in which the body of the rulecontains relations that are usually explicitly stated, while the heademploys a less-frequently mentioned relation that is easilyinferred. The rule learner processes training examples in an onlinemanner to allow it to scale to large text corpora. Furthermore, wepropose a novel approach to weighting rules using a curated lexicalontology like WordNet. The learned rules along with their parametersare then used to infer implicit information using a Bayesian LogicProgram. Experimental evaluation on a machine reading testbeddemonstrates the efficacy of the proposed methods.

There is a pressing need in clinical practice to mitigate (identify and address) adverse interactions that occur when a comorbid patient is managed according to multiple concurrently applied disease-specific clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). We describe an automatic algorithm for mitigating undesirable interactions for pairs of CPGs. The algorithm constructs logical models of processed CPGs and employs constraint logic programming to solve them. It handles two important issues frequently occurring in CPGs - iterative actions forming a cycle and numerical measurements. Dealing with these two issues in practice relies on a physician's knowledge and the manual analysis of CPGs. Yet for guidelines to be considered stand-alone and an easy to use clinical decision support tool this process needs to be automated. In this paper we present our algorithm that aims to build such a tool by mitigating multiple CPGs while handling cycles and numerical measurements. The application of the mitigation algorithm is illustrated with a clinical case study involving a comorbid patient suffering from atrial fibrillation in the setting of Wolff-Parkinsons-White syndrome.

Modularity is essential for modeling large-scale practical applications. We propose modular logic programs as a modular version of answer set programming and study the relationship of our formalism to an earlier concept of lp-modules.

Declarative logic programs (LP) based on the well-founded semantics (WFS) are widely used for knowledge representation (KR).  Logical functions are desirable expressively in KR, but when present make LP inferencing become undecidable. In this paper, we present radial restraint : a novel approach to bounded rationality in LP. Radial restraint is parameterized by a norm that measures the syntactic complexity of a term, along with an abstraction function based on that norm.  When a term exceeds a bound for the norm, the term is assigned the WFS's third truth-value of undefined .  If the norm is finitary, radial restraint guarantees finiteness of models and decidability of inferencing, even when logical functions are present.  It further guarantees soundness, even when non-monotonicity is present.  We give a fixed-point semantics for radially restrained well-founded models which soundly approximate well-founded models.  We also show how to perform correct inferencing relative to such models, via SLG_ABS, an extension of tabled SLG resolution that uses norm-based abstraction functions.  Finally we discuss how SLG_ABS is implemented in the engine of XSB Prolog, and scales to knowledge bases with more than 10^8 rules and facts.

We introduce a general declarative framework for incorporating domain-specific heuristics into ASP solving. We accomplish this by extending the first-order modeling language of ASP by a distinguished heuristic predicate. The resulting heuristic information is processed as an equitable part of the logic program and subsequently exploited by the solver when it comes to non-deterministically assigning a truth value to an atom. We implemented our approach as a dedicated heuristic in the ASP solver clasp and show its great prospect by an empirical evaluation.

Answer set programs with external source access may introduce new constants that are not present in the program, which is known as value invention. As naive value invention leads to programs with infinite grounding and answer sets, syntactic safety criteria are imposed on programs. However, traditional criteria are in many cases unnecessarily strong and limit expressiveness. We present liberal domain-expansion (de-) safe programs, a novel generic class of answer set programs with external source access that has a finite grounding and allows for value invention. De-safe programs use so-called term bounding functions as a parameter for modular instantiation with concrete—e.g., syntactic or semantic or both—safety criteria. This ensures extensibility of the approach in the future. We provide concrete instances of the framework and develop an operator that can be used for computing a finite grounding. Finally, we discuss related notions of safety from the literature, and show that our approach is strictly more expressive.

The practical results of answer-set programming indicate that classical complexity theory is insufficient as a theoretical framework to explain why modern answer-set programming solvers work fast on industrial applications. Complexity analysis by means of parameterized complexity theory seems to be promising, because we think that the reason for the gap between theory and practice is the presence of a "hidden structure" in real-world instances. The application of parameterized complexity theory to answer-set programming would give a crucial understanding of how solver heuristics work. This profound understanding can be used to improve the decision heuristics of modern solvers and yields new efficient algorithms for decision problems in the nonmonotonic setting. My research aims to explain the gap between theoretical upper bounds and the effort to solve real-world instances. I will further develop by means of parameterized complexity exact algorithms which work efficiently for real-world instances. The approach is based on backdoors which are small sets of atoms that represent "clever reasoning shortcuts" through the search space. The concept of backdoors is widely used in the areas of propositional satisfiability and constraint satisfaction. I will show how this concept can be adapted to the nonmonotonic setting and how it can be utilized to improve common algorithms.