Disjunctive finitary programs are a class of logic programs admitting function symbols and hence infinite domains. They have very good computational properties, for example ground queries are decidable while in the general case the stable model semantics is highly undecidable. In this paper we prove that a larger class of programs, called finitely recursive programs, preserves most of the good properties of finitary programs under the stable model semantics, namely: (i) finitely recursive programs enjoy a compactness property; (ii) inconsistency checking and skeptical reasoning are semidecidable; (iii) skeptical resolution is complete for normal finitely recursive programs. Moreover, we show how to check inconsistency and answer skeptical queries using finite subsets of the ground program instantiation. We achieve this by extending the splitting sequence theorem by Lifschitz and Turner: We prove that if the input program P is finitely recursive, then the partial stable models determined by any smooth splitting omega-sequence converge to a stable model of P.

This paper investigates the relationship between the Logical Algorithms language (LA) of Ganzinger and McAllester and Constraint Handling Rules (CHR). We present a translation schema from LA to CHR-rp: CHR with rule priorities, and show that the meta-complexity theorem for LA can be applied to a subset of CHR-rp via inverse translation. Inspired by the high-level implementation proposal for Logical Algorithm by Ganzinger and McAllester and based on a new scheduling algorithm, we propose an alternative implementation for CHR-rp that gives strong complexity guarantees and results in a new and accurate meta-complexity theorem for CHR-rp. It is furthermore shown that the translation from Logical Algorithms to CHR-rp combined with the new CHR-rp implementation, satisfies the required complexity for the Logical Algorithms meta-complexity result to hold.

Much of human knowledge is organized into sophisticated systems that are often called intuitive theories. We propose that intuitive theories are mentally represented in a logical language, and that the subjective complexity of a theory is determined by the length of its representation in this language. This complexity measure helps to explain how theories are learned from relational data, and how they support inductive inferences about unobserved relations. We describe two experiments that test our approach, and show that it provides a better account of human learning and reasoning than an approach developed by Goodman [1]. What is a theory, and what makes one theory better than another?

Much of human knowledge is organized into sophisticated systems that are often called intuitive theories. We propose that intuitive theories are mentally represented in a logical language, and that the subjective complexity of a theory is determined by the length of its representation in this language. This complexity measure helps to explain how theories are learned from relational data, and how they support inductive inferences about unobserved relations. We describe two experiments that test our approach, and show that it provides a better account of human learning and reasoning than an approach developed by Goodman [1]. What is a theory, and what makes one theory better than another?

Much of human knowledge is organized into sophisticated systems that are often called intuitive theories. We propose that intuitive theories are mentally represented ina logical language, and that the subjective complexity of a theory is determined by the length of its representation in this language. This complexity measure helps to explain how theories are learned from relational data, and how they support inductive inferences about unobserved relations. We describe two experiments that test our approach, and show that it provides a better account of human learning and reasoning than an approach developed by Goodman [1]. What is a theory, and what makes one theory better than another?

Inspired by the recently introduced framework of AND/OR search spaces for graphical models, we propose to augment Multi-Valued Decision Diagrams (MDD) with AND nodes, in order to capture function decomposition structure and to extend these compiled data structures to general weighted graphical models (e.g., probabilistic models). We present the AND/OR Multi-Valued Decision Diagram (AOMDD) which compiles a graphical model into a canonical form that supports polynomial (e.g., solution counting, belief updating) or constant time (e.g. equivalence of graphical models) queries. We provide two algorithms for compiling the AOMDD of a graphical model. The first is search-based, and works by applying reduction rules to the trace of the memory intensive AND/OR search algorithm. The second is inference-based and uses a Bucket Elimination schedule to combine the AOMDDs of the input functions via the the APPLY operator. For both algorithms, the compilation time and the size of the AOMDD are, in the worst case, exponential in the treewidth of the graphical model, rather than pathwidth as is known for ordered binary decision diagrams (OBDDs). We introduce the concept of semantic treewidth, which helps explain why the size of a decision diagram is often much smaller than the worst case bound. We provide an experimental evaluation that demonstrates the potential of AOMDDs.

Answer set programming (ASP) is a logic programming paradigm that can be used to solve complex combinatorial search problems. Aggregates are an ASP construct that plays an important role in many applications. Defining a satisfactory semantics of aggregates turned out to be a difficult problem, and in this paper we propose a new approach, based on an analogy between aggregates and propositional connectives. First, we extend the definition of an answer set/stable model to cover arbitrary propositional theories; then we define aggregates on top of them both as primitive constructs and as abbreviations for formulas. Our definition of an aggregate combines expressiveness and simplicity, and it inherits many theorems about programs with nested expressions, such as theorems about strong equivalence and splitting.

To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP) This paper develops a declarative language, P-log, that combines logical and probabilistic arguments in its reasoning. Answer Set Prolog is used as the logical foundation, while causal Bayes nets serve as a probabilistic foundation. We give several nontrivial examples and illustrate the use of P-log for knowledge representation and updating of knowledge. We argue that our approach to updates is more appealing than existing approaches. We give sufficiency conditions for the coherency of P-log programs and show that Bayes nets can be easily mapped to coherent P-log programs.

The paper introduces the notion of off-line justification for Answer Set Programming (ASP). Justifications provide a graph-based explanation of the truth value of an atom w.r.t. a given answer set. The paper extends also this notion to provide justification of atoms during the computation of an answer set (on-line justification), and presents an integration of on-line justifications within the computation model of Smodels. Off-line and on-line justifications provide useful tools to enhance understanding of ASP, and they offer a basic data structure to support methodologies and tools for debugging answer set programs. A preliminary implementation has been developed in ASP-PROLOG. (To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP))

We present exact algorithms for identifying deterministic-actions' effects and preconditions in dynamic partially observable domains. They apply when one does not know the action model(the way actions affect the world) of a domain and must learn it from partial observations over time. Such scenarios are common in real world applications. They are challenging for AI tasks because traditional domain structures that underly tractability (e.g., conditional independence) fail there (e.g., world features become correlated). Our work departs from traditional assumptions about partial observations and action models. In particular, it focuses on problems in which actions are deterministic of simple logical structure and observation models have all features observed with some frequency. We yield tractable algorithms for the modified problem for such domains. Our algorithms take sequences of partial observations over time as input, and output deterministic action models that could have lead to those observations. The algorithms output all or one of those models (depending on our choice), and are exact in that no model is misclassified given the observations. Our algorithms take polynomial time in the number of time steps and state features for some traditional action classes examined in the AI-planning literature, e.g., STRIPS actions. In contrast, traditional approaches for HMMs and Reinforcement Learning are inexact and exponentially intractable for such domains. Our experiments verify the theoretical tractability guarantees, and show that we identify action models exactly. Several applications in planning, autonomous exploration, and adventure-game playing already use these results. They are also promising for probabilistic settings, partially observable reinforcement learning, and diagnosis.