We describe a system for specifying the effects of actions. Unlike those commonly used in AI planning, our system uses an action description language that allows one to specify the effects of actions using domain rules, which are state constraints that can entail new action effects from old ones. Declaratively, an action domain in our language corresponds to a nonmonotonic causal theory in the situation calculus. Procedurally, such an action domain is compiled into a set of logical theories, one for each action in the domain, from which fully instantiated successor state-like axioms and STRIPS-like systems are then generated. We expect the system to be a useful tool for knowledge engineers writing action specifications for classical AI planning systems, GOLOG systems, and other systems where formal specifications of actions are needed.

Recently, planning based on answer set programming has been proposed as an approach towards realizing declarative planning systems. In this paper, we present the language Kc, which extends the declarative planning language K by action costs. Kc provides the notion of admissible and optimal plans, which are plans whose overall action costs are within a given limit resp. minimum over all plans (i.e., cheapest plans). As we demonstrate, this novel language allows for expressing some nontrivial planning tasks in a declarative way. Furthermore, it can be utilized for representing planning problems under other optimality criteria, such as computing ``shortest'' plans (with the least number of steps), and refinement combinations of cheapest and fastest plans. We study complexity aspects of the language Kc and provide a transformation to logic programs, such that planning problems are solved via answer set programming. Furthermore, we report experimental results on selected problems. Our experience is encouraging that answer set planning may be a valuable approach to expressive planning systems in which intricate planning problems can be naturally specified and solved.

We address the problem of propositional logic-based abduction, i.e., the problem of searching for a best explanation for a given propositional observation according to a given propositional knowledge base. We give a general algorithm, based on the notion of projection; then we study restrictions over the representations of the knowledge base and of the query, and find new polynomial classes of abduction problems. We also show that our algorithm unifies several previous results.

We can only state these relationships by adding axioms of some sort. Getting the axioms right, and getting algorithms based on them right, has not been easy. As a result, the basic situation calculus lived as a textbook curiosity for several years. Researchers interested in practical applications of temporal reasoning, such as automated planning, kept the basic ontology of the and execution. Haas (1987), Schubert (1990), and not hold true. To express the papers that have given new life to of Reiter (1991), breathed new fact that adopting a person makes the attempt to formalize realistic reasoning life into the situation calculus (Mc-him/her one's child, we might write in temporal contexts.

The recent emergence of heavily-optimized modal decision procedures has highlighted the key role of empirical testing in this domain. Unfortunately, the introduction of extensive empirical tests for modal logics is recent, and so far none of the proposed test generators is very satisfactory. To cope with this fact, we present a new random generation method that provides benefits over previous methods for generating empirical tests. It fixes and much generalizes one of the best-known methods, the random CNF_[]m test, allowing for generating a much wider variety of problems, covering in principle the whole input space. Our new method produces much more suitable test sets for the current generation of modal decision procedures. We analyze the features of the new method by means of an extensive collection of empirical tests.

The size and complexity of software and hardware systems have significantly increased in the past years. As a result, it is harder to guarantee their correct behavior. One of the most successful methods for automated verification of finite-state systems is model checking. Most of the current model-checking systems use binary decision diagrams (BDDs) for the representation of the tested model and in the verification process of its properties. Generally, BDDs allow a canonical compact representation of a boolean function (given an order of its variables). The more compact the BDD is, the better performance one gets from the verifier. However, finding an optimal order for a BDD is an NP-complete problem. Therefore, several heuristic methods based on expert knowledge have been developed for variable ordering. We propose an alternative approach in which the variable ordering algorithm gains 'ordering experience' from training models and uses the learned knowledge for finding good orders. Our methodology is based on offline learning of pair precedence classifiers from training models, that is, learning which variable pair permutation is more likely to lead to a good order. For each training model, a number of training sequences are evaluated. Every training model variable pair permutation is then tagged based on its performance on the evaluated orders. The tagged permutations are then passed through a feature extractor and are given as examples to a classifier creation algorithm. Given a model for which an order is requested, the ordering algorithm consults each precedence classifier and constructs a pair precedence table which is used to create the order. Our algorithm was integrated with SMV, which is one of the most widely used verification systems. Preliminary empirical evaluation of our methodology, using real benchmark models, shows performance that is better than random ordering and is competitive with existing algorithms that use expert knowledge. We believe that in sub-domains of models (alu, caches, etc.) our system will prove even more valuable. This is because it features the ability to learn sub-domain knowledge, something that no other ordering algorithm does.

We give results about the learnability and required complexity of logical formulae to solve classification problems. These results are obtained by linking propositional logic with kernel machines. In particular we show that decision trees and disjunctive normal forms (DNF) can be represented by the help of a special kernel, linking regularized risk to separation margin. Subsequently we derive a number of lower bounds on the required complexity of logic formulae using properties of algorithms for generation of linear estimators, such as perceptron and maximal perceptron learning.

We give results about the learnability and required complexity of logical formulae to solve classification problems. These results are obtained by linking propositional logic with kernel machines. In particular we show that decision trees and disjunctive normal forms (DNF) can be represented by the help of a special kernel, linking regularized risk to separation margin. Subsequently we derive a number of lower bounds on the required complexity of logic formulae using properties of algorithms for generation of linear estimators, such as perceptron and maximal perceptron learning.

We give results about the learnability and required complexity of logical formulae to solve classification problems. These results are obtained by linking propositional logic with kernel machines. In particular we show that decision trees and disjunctive normal forms (DNF) can be represented bythe help of a special kernel, linking regularized risk to separation margin. Subsequently we derive a number of lower bounds on the required complexity of logic formulae using properties of algorithms for generation of linear estimators, such as perceptron and maximal perceptron learning.

A basic promise of AI research is that what we observe as human intelligence is in fact a computation either directly or as an emergent effect. An attempt at classifying and distinguishing types of AI researchers was to call them all either scruffy (those that wrote code and implemented systems) or neat (those that base AI on some formalism like first order predicate calculus). Out of necessity, researchers tend to focus on a particular aspect of intelligence to simulate. When this is done, the effect is to restrict the class of computations that are being considered.