In this paper, we present a formalization of an algorithm to construct admissible discrete vector fields in the Coq theorem prover taking advantage of the SSReflect library. Discrete vector fields are a tool which has been welcomed in the homological analysis of digital images since it provides a procedure to reduce the amount of information but preserving the homological properties. In particular, thanks to discrete vector fields, we are able to compute, inside Coq, homological properties of biomedical images which otherwise are out of the reach of this system.

We consider the problem of computing optimal generalised policies for relational Markov decision processes. We describe an approach combining some of the benefits of purely inductive techniques with those of symbolic dynamic programming methods. The latter reason about the optimal value function using first-order decision theoretic regression and formula rewriting, while the former, when provided with a suitable hypotheses language, are capable of generalising value functions or policies for small instances. Our idea is to use reasoning and in particular classical first-order regression to automatically generate a hypotheses language dedicated to the domain at hand, which is then used as input by an inductive solver. This approach avoids the more complex reasoning of symbolic dynamic programming while focusing the inductive solver's attention on concepts that are specifically relevant to the optimal value function for the domain considered.

Humans currently use arguments for explaining choices which are already made, or for evaluating potential choices. Each potential choice has usually pros and cons of various strengths. In spite of the usefulness of arguments in a decision making process, there have been few formal proposals handling this idea if we except works by Fox and Parsons and by Bonet and Geffner. In this paper we propose a possibilistic logic framework where arguments are built from an uncertain knowledge base and a set of prioritized goals. The proposed approach can compute two kinds of decisions by distinguishing between pessimistic and optimistic attitudes. When the available, maybe uncertain, knowledge is consistent, as well as the set of prioritized goals (which have to be fulfilled as far as possible), the method for evaluating decisions on the basis of arguments agrees with the possibility theory-based approach to decision-making under uncertainty. Taking advantage of its relation with formal approaches to defeasible argumentation, the proposed framework can be generalized in case of partially inconsistent knowledge, or goal bases.

Defeasible argumentation frameworks have evolved to become a sound setting to formalize commonsense, qualitative reasoning from incomplete and potentially inconsistent knowledge. Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) is a defeasible argumentation formalism based on an extension of logic programming. Although DeLP has been successfully integrated in a number of different real-world applications, DeLP cannot deal with explicit uncertainty, nor with vague knowledge, as defeasibility is directly encoded in the object language. This paper introduces P-DeLP, a new logic programming language that extends original DeLP capabilities for qualitative reasoning by incorporating the treatment of possibilistic uncertainty and fuzzy knowledge. Such features will be formalized on the basis of PGL, a possibilistic logic based on Gödel fuzzy logic.

This paper is an example-based demonstration of our initial results on the formal specification of programs written in the computer algebra language MiniMaple (a substantial subset of Maple with slight extensions). The main goal of this work is to define a verification framework for MiniMaple. Formal specification of MiniMaple programs is rather complex task as it supports non-standard types of objects, e.g. symbols and unevaluated expressions, and additional functions and predicates, e.g. runtime type tests etc. We have used the specification language to specify various computer algebra concepts respective objects of the Maple package DifferenceDifferential developed at our institute.

The logic FO(ID) uses ideas from the field of logic programming to extend first order logic with non-monotone inductive definitions. Such logic formally extends logic programming, abductive logic programming and datalog, and thus formalizes the view on these formalisms as logics of (generalized) inductive definitions. The goal of this paper is to study a deductive inference method for PC(ID), which is the propositional fragment of FO(ID). We introduce a formal proof system based on the sequent calculus (Gentzen-style deductive system) for this logic. As PC(ID) is an integration of classical propositional logic and propositional inductive definitions, our sequent calculus proof system integrates inference rules for propositional calculus and definitions. We present the soundness and completeness of this proof system with respect to a slightly restricted fragment of PC(ID). We also provide some complexity results for PC(ID). By developing the proof system for PC(ID), it helps us to enhance the understanding of proof-theoretic foundations of FO(ID), and therefore to investigate useful proof systems for FO(ID).

Most modal logics such as S5, LTL, or ATL are extensions of Modal Logic K. While the model checking problems for LTL and to a lesser extent ATL have been very active research areas for the past decades, the model checking problem for the more basic Multi-agent Modal Logic K (MMLK) has important applications as a formal framework for perfect information multi-player games on its own. We present Minimal Proof Search (MPS), an effort number based algorithm solving the model checking problem for MMLK. We prove two important properties for MPS beyond its correctness. The (dis)proof exhibited by MPS is of minimal cost for a general definition of cost, and MPS is an optimal algorithm for finding (dis)proofs of minimal cost. Optimality means that any comparable algorithm either needs to explore a bigger or equal state space than MPS, or is not guaranteed to find a (dis)proof of minimal cost on every input. As such, our work relates to A* and AO* in heuristic search, to Proof Number Search and DFPN+ in two-player games, and to counterexample minimization in software model checking.

Detection and elimination of redundant clauses from propositional formulas in Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF) is a fundamental problem with numerous application domains, including AI, and has been the subject of extensive research. Moreover, a number of recent applications motivated various extensions of this problem. For example, unsatisfiable formulas partitioned into disjoint subsets of clauses (so-called groups) often need to be simplified by removing redundant groups, or may contain redundant variables, rather than clauses. In this report we present a generalized theoretical framework of labelled CNF formulas that unifies various extensions of the redundancy detection and removal problem and allows to derive a number of results that subsume and extend previous work. The follow-up reports contain a number of additional theoretical results and algorithms for various computational problems in the context of the proposed framework.

Recent work on approximate linear programming (ALP) techniques for first-order Markov Decision Processes (FOMDPs) represents the value function linearly w.r.t. a set of first-order basis functions and uses linear programming techniques to determine suitable weights. This approach offers the advantage that it does not require simplification of the first-order value function, and allows one to solve FOMDPs independent of a specific domain instantiation. In this paper, we address several questions to enhance the applicability of this work: (1) Can we extend the first-order ALP framework to approximate policy iteration to address performance deficiencies of previous approaches? (2) Can we automatically generate basis functions and evaluate their impact on value function quality? (3) How can we decompose intractable problems with universally quantified rewards into tractable subproblems? We propose answers to these questions along with a number of novel optimizations and provide a comparative empirical evaluation on logistics problems from the ICAPS 2004 Probabilistic Planning Competition.

Combining first-order logic and probability has long been a goal of AI. Markov logic (Richardson & Domingos, 2006) accomplishes this by attaching weights to first-order formulas and viewing them as templates for features of Markov networks. Unfortunately, it does not have the full power of first-order logic, because it is only defined for finite domains. This paper extends Markov logic to infinite domains, by casting it in the framework of Gibbs measures (Georgii, 1988). We show that a Markov logic network (MLN) admits a Gibbs measure as long as each ground atom has a finite number of neighbors. Many interesting cases fall in this category. We also show that an MLN admits a unique measure if the weights of its non-unit clauses are small enough. We then examine the structure of the set of consistent measures in the non-unique case. Many important phenomena, including systems with phase transitions, are represented by MLNs with non-unique measures. We relate the problem of satisfiability in first-order logic to the properties of MLN measures, and discuss how Markov logic relates to previous infinite models.