If you are looking for an answer to the question What is Artificial Intelligence? and you only have a minute, then here's the definition the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence offers on its home page: "the scientific understanding of the mechanisms underlying thought and intelligent behavior and their embodiment in machines."
However, if you are fortunate enough to have more than a minute, then please get ready to embark upon an exciting journey exploring AI (but beware, it could last a lifetime) …
The paper describes a preferential approach for dealing with exceptions in KLM preferential logics, based on the rational closure. It is well known that the rational closure does not allow an independent handling of the inheritance of different defeasible properties of concepts. Several solutions have been proposed to face this problem and the lexicographic closure is the most notable one. In this work, we consider an alternative closure construction, called the Multi Preference closure (MP-closure), that has been first considered for reasoning with exceptions in DLs. Here, we reconstruct the notion of MP-closure in the propositional case and we show that it is a natural variant of Lehmann's lexicographic closure. Abandoning Maximal Entropy (an alternative route already considered but not explored by Lehmann) leads to a construction which exploits a different lexicographic ordering w.r.t. the lexicographic closure, and determines a preferential consequence relation rather than a rational consequence relation. We show that, building on the MP-closure semantics, rationality can be recovered, at least from the semantic point of view, resulting in a rational consequence relation which is stronger than the rational closure, but incomparable with the lexicographic closure. We also show that the MP-closure is stronger than the Relevant Closure.
Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a purely declarative formalism developed in the field of logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning: computational problems are encoded by logic programs whose answer sets, corresponding to solutions, are computed by an ASP system. Different, semantically equivalent, programs can be defined for the same problem; however, performance of systems evaluating them might significantly vary. We propose an approach for automatically transforming an input logic program into an equivalent one that can be evaluated more efficiently. One can make use of existing tree-decomposition techniques for rewriting selected rules into a set of multiple ones; the idea is to guide and adaptively apply them on the basis of proper new heuristics, to obtain a smart rewriting algorithm to be integrated into an ASP system. The method is rather general: it can be adapted to any system and implement different preference policies. Furthermore, we define a set of new heuristics tailored at optimizing grounding, one of the main phases of the ASP computation; we use them in order to implement the approach into the ASP system DLV, in particular into its grounding subsystem I-DLV, and carry out an extensive experimental activity for assessing the impact of the proposal. Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).
Answer-Set Programming (ASP) is an expressive rule-based knowledge-representation formalism supported by efficient solver technology. Traditional evaluation of answer-set programs takes place in two phases: grounding and solving. Grounding incurs an up-to exponential increase in space, termed the grounding bottleneck of ASP, which is often encountered in practice. Lazy grounding avoids this bottleneck but is restricted to normal rules, significantly limiting the expressive power of this approach. We propose a framework to handle aggregates by normalizing them on demand during the lazy grounding process; we call this approach lazy normalization. It is feasible for different types of aggregates and can bring about up-to exponential gains in space and time.
We explore the relationships between causal rules and counterfactuals, as well as their relative representation capabilities, in the logical framework of the causal calculus. It will be shown that, though counterfactuals are readily definable on the basis of causal rules, the reverse reduction is achievable only up to a certain logical threshold (basic equivalence). As a result, we will argue that counterfactuals cannot distinguish causal theories that justify different claims of actual causation, which could be seen as the main source of the problem of `structural equivalents' in counterfactual approaches to causation. This will lead us to a general conclusion about the primary role of causal rules in representing causation.
Koutras, Costas D. (American University of the Middle East) | Liaskos, Konstantinos (American University of the Middle East) | Moyzes, Christos (University of Liverpool) | Rantsoudis, Christos (Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse)
A default consequence relation α|~β (if α, then normally β) can be naturally interpreted via a `most' generalized quantifier: α|~β is valid iff in `most' α-worlds, β is also true. We define various semantic incarnations of this principle which attempt to make the set of (α ∧ β)-worlds `large' and the set of (α ∧ ¬ β)-worlds `small'. The straightforward implementation of this idea on finite sets is via `clear majority'. We proceed to examine different `majority' interpretations of normality which are defined upon notions of classical mathematics which formalize aspects of `size'. We define default consequence using the notion of asymptotic density from analytic number theory. Asymptotic density provides a way to measure the size of integer sequences in a way much more fine-grained and accurate than set cardinality. Further on, in a topological setting, we identify `large' sets with dense sets and `negligibly small' sets with nowhere dense sets. Finally, we define default consequence via the concept of measure, classically developed in mathematical analysis for capturing `size' through a generalization of the notions of length, area and volume. The logics defined via asymptotic density and measure are weaker than the KLM system P, the so-called `conservative core' of nonmonotonic reasoning, and they resemble to probabilistic consequence. Topology goes a longer way towards system P but it misses Cautious Monotony (CM) and AND. Our results show that a `size'-oriented interpretation of default reasoning is context-sensitive and in `most' cases it departs from the preferential approach.
Linear Logic and Defeasible Logic have been adopted to formalise different features relevant to agents: consumption of resources, and reasoning with exceptions. We propose a framework to combine sub-structural features, corresponding to the consumption of resources, with defeasibility aspects, and we discuss the design choices for the framework.
Argumentation is a non-monotonic process. This reflects the fact that argumentation involves uncertain information, and so new information can cause a change in the conclusions drawn. However, the base logic does not need to be non-monotonic. Indeed, most proposals for structured argumentation use a monotonic base logic (e.g. some form of modus ponens with a rule-based language, or classical logic). Nonetheless, there are issues in capturing defeasible reasoning in argumentation including choice of base logic and modelling of defeasible knowledge. And there are insights and tools to be harnessed for research in non-monontonic logics. We consider some of these issues in this paper.
We propose analyzing conditional reasoning by appeal to a notion of intervention on a simulation program, formalizing and subsuming a number of approaches to conditional thinking in the recent AI literature. Our main results include a series of axiomatizations, allowing comparison between this framework and existing frameworks (normality-ordering models, causal structural equation models), and a complexity result establishing NP-completeness of the satisfiability problem. Perhaps surprisingly, some of the basic logical principles common to all existing approaches are invalidated in our causal simulation approach. We suggest that this additional flexibility is important in modeling some intuitive examples.
Conditional information is an integral part of representation and inference processes of causal relationships, temporal events, and even the deliberation about impossible scenarios of cognitive agents. For formalizing these inferences, a proper formal representation is needed. Psychological studies indicate that classical, monotonic logic is not the approriate model for capturing human reasoning: There are cases where the participants systematically deviate from classically valid answers, while in other cases they even endorse logically invalid ones. Many analyses covered the independent analysis of individual inference rules applied by human reasoners. In this paper we define inference patterns as a formalization of the joint usage or avoidance of these rules. Considering patterns instead of single inferences opens the way for categorizing inference studies with regard to their qualitative results. We apply plausibility relations which provide basic formal models for many theories of conditionals, nonmonotonic reasoning, and belief revision to asses the rationality of the patterns and thus the individual inferences drawn in the study. By this replacement of classical logic with formalisms most suitable for conditionals, we shift the basis of judging rationality from compatibility with classical entailment to consistency in a logic of conditionals. Using inductive reasoning on the plausibility relations we reverse engineer conditional knowledge bases as explanatory model for and formalization of the background knowledge of the participants. In this way the conditional knowledge bases derived from the inference patterns provide an explanation for the outcome of the study that generated the inference pattern.
The workshop was organized by Jack Minker and John McCarthy. The Program Committee members were Krzysztof Apt, John Horty, Sarit Kraus, Vladimir Lifschitz, John McCarthy, Jack Minker, Don Perlis, and Ray Reiter. The purpose of the workshop was to bring together researchers who use logic as a fundamental tool in AI to permit them to review accomplishments, assess future directions, and share their research in LBAI. This article is a summary of the workshop. The areas selected for discussion at the workshop were abductive and inductive reasoning, applications of theorem proving, commonsense reasoning, computational logic, constraints, logic and high-level robotics, logic and language, logic and planning, logic for agents and actions, logic of causation and action, logic, probability and decision theory, nonmonotonic reasoning, theories of belief, and knowledge representation.