General Game Players (GGPs) are programs which can play an arbitrary game given only its rules and the Game Description Language (GDL) is a variant of Datalog used in GGP competitions to specify the rules. GDL inherits from Datalog the use of Horn clauses as rules and recursion, but it too requires stratification and does not allow to use quantifiers. We present an alternative formalism for game description which is based on first-order logic (FO). States of the game are represented by relational structures, legal moves by structure rewriting rules guarded by FO formulas, and the goals of the players by formulas which extend FO with counting. The advantage of our formalism comes from more explicit state representationcand from the use of quantifiers in formulas. We show how to exploit existential quantification in players' goals to generate heuristics for evaluating positions in the game. The derived heuristics are good enough for a basic alpha-beta agent to win against state of the art GGP.

Some of these complex queries, such as Q1 or Q2, Recent advances in health and life sciences have led to generation can be represented in a formal query language (e.g., of a large amount of biomedical data. To facilitate access SQL/SPARQL) and then answered using Semantic Web to its desired parts, such a big mass of data has been represented technologies. However, queries, like Q4, that require auxiliary in structured forms, like biomedical ontologies and recursive definitions (such as transitive closure) cannot databases. On the other hand, representing these biomedical be directly represented in these languages; and thus such ontologies and databases in different forms, constructing queries cannot be answered directly using Semantic Web them independently from each other, and storing them at technologies. The experts usually compute auxiliary relations different locations have brought about many challenges for externally, for instance, by enumerating all drug-drug answering queries about the knowledge represented in these interaction chains or gene cliques, and then use these auxiliary ontologies and databases.

Inspired by “GoogleTM Sets” and Bayesian sets, we consider the problem of retrieving complex objects and relations among them, i.e., ground atoms from a logical concept, given a query consisting of a few atoms from that concept. We formulate this as a within-network relational learning problem using few labels only and describe an algorithm that ranks atoms using a score based on random walks with restart (RWR): the probability that a random surfer hits an atom starting from the query atoms. Specifically, we compute an initial ranking using personalized PageRank. Then, we find paths of atoms that are connected via their arguments, variablize the ground atoms in each path, in order to create features for the query. These features are used to re-personalize the original RWR and to finally compute the set completion, based on Label Propagation. Moreover, we exploit that RWR techniques can naturally be lifted and show that lifted inference for label propagation is possible. We evaluate our algorithm on a realworld relational dataset by finding completions of sets of objects describing the Roman city of Pompeii. We compare to Bayesian sets and show that our approach gives very reasonable set completions.

The result of forgetting some predicates in a first-order sentence may not exist in the sense that it might not be captured by any first-order sentences. This, indeed, severely restricts the usage of forgetting in applications. To address this issue, we propose a notion called $k$-forgetting, also called bounded forgetting in general, for any fixed number $k$. We present several equivalent characterizations of bounded forgetting and show that the result of bounded forgetting, on one hand, can always be captured by a single first-order sentence, and on the other hand, preserves the information that we are concerned with.

It has been argued that causal rules are necessary for representing both implicit side-effects of actions and action qualifications, and there have been a number different approaches for representing causal rules in the area of formal theoriesof actions. These different approaches in general agree on rules without cycles. However, they differ on causal rules with mutual cyclic dependencies, both in terms of how these rules are supposed to be represented and their semantics. In this paper we show that by adding one more minimization to Lin's circumscriptive causal theory in the situation calculus, we can have a uniform representation of causal rules including those with cyclic dependencies. We also demonstrate that sometimes causal rules can be compiled into logically equivalent successor state axioms even in the presence of cyclical dependencies between fluents.

We propose a novel technique for proving the consistency of large, complex and heterogeneous theories for which ‘standard’ automated reasoning methods are considered insufficient. In particular, we exemplify the applicability of the method by establishing the consistency of the foundational ontology DOLCE, a large, first-order ontology. The approach we advocate constructs a global model for a theory, in our case DOLCE, built from smaller models of subtheories together with amalgamability properties between such models. The proof proceeds by (i) hand-crafting a so-called architectural specification of DOLCE which reflects the way models of the theory can be built, (ii) an automated verification of the amalgamability conditions, and (iii) a (partially automated) series of relative consistency proofs.

Building on a general theory of action by Reiter and his colleagues, Bacchus et al. give an account for formalizing degrees of belief and noisy actions in the situation calculus. Unfortunately, there is no clear solution to the projection problem for the formalism. And, while the model has epistemic features, it is not obvious what the agent's knowledge base should look like. Also, reasoning about uncertainty essentially resorts to second-order logic. In recent work, Gabaldon and Lakemeyer remedy these shortcomings somewhat, but here too the utility seems to be restricted to queries (with action operators) about the initial theory. In this paper, we propose a fresh amalgamation of a modal fragment of the situation calculus and uncertainty, where the idea will be to update the initial knowledge base, containing both ordinary and (certain kinds of) probabilistic beliefs, when noisy actions are performed. We show that the new semantics has the right properties, and study a special case where updating probabilistic beliefs is computable. Our ideas are closely related to the Lin and Reiter notion of progression.

Preference handling and optimization are indispensable means for addressing non-trivial applications in Answer Set Programming (ASP). However, their implementation becomes difficult whenever they bring about a significant increase in computational complexity. As a consequence, existing ASP systems do not offer complex optimization capacities, supporting, for instance, inclusion-based minimization or Pareto efficiency. Rather, such complex criteria are typically addressed by resorting to dedicated modeling techniques, like saturation. Unlike the ease of common ASP modeling, however, these techniques are rather involved and hardly usable by ASP laymen. We address this problem by developing a general implementation technique by means of meta-programming, thus reusing existing ASP systems to capture various forms of qualitative preferences among answer sets. In this way, complex preferences and optimization capacities become readily available for ASP applications.

The Beth definability property, a well-known property from classical logic, is investigated in the context of description logics (DLs): if a general L-TBox implicitly defines an L-concept in terms of a given signature, where L is a DL, then does there always exist over this signature an explicit definition in L for the concept? This property has been studied before and used to optimize reasoning in DLs. In this paper a complete classification of Beth definability is provided for extensions of the basic DL ALC with transitive roles, inverse roles, role hierarchies, and/or functionality restrictions, both on arbitrary and on finite structures. Moreover, we present a tableau-based algorithm which computes explicit definitions of at most double exponential size. This algorithm is optimal because it is also shown that the smallest explicit definition of an implicitly defined concept may be double exponentially long in the size of the input TBox. Finally, if explicit definitions are allowed to be expressed in first-order logic then we show how to compute them in EXPTIME.

Many important problems can be compactly represented as quantified boolean formulas (QBF) and solved by general QBF solvers. To date QBF solvers have mainly focused on determining whether or not the input QBF is true or false. However, additional important information about an application can be gathered from its QBF formulation. In this paper we demonstrate that a circuit-based QBF solver can be exploited to obtain a Q-Resolution proof of the truth or the falsity of a QBF. QBFs have a natural interpretation as a two person game and our main result is to show how, via a simple computation, the moves for the winning player can be computed directly from these proofs. This result shows that the proof is a representation of the winning strategy. In previous approaches the winning strategy has often been represented in a way that makes it hard to verify. In our approach the correctness of the strategy follows directly from the correctness of the proof, which is relatively easy to verify.