There has been considerable recent interest in explainability in AI, especially with black-box machine learning models. As correctly observed by the planning community, when the application at hand is not a single-shot decision or prediction, but a sequence of actions that depend on observations, a richer notion of explanations are desirable. In this paper, we look to provide a formal account of ``counterfactual explanations," based in terms of action sequences. We then show that this naturally leads to an account of model reconciliation, which might take the form of the user correcting the agent's model, or suggesting actions to the agent's plan. For this, we will need to articulate what is true versus what is known, and we appeal to a modal fragment of the situation calculus to formalise these intuitions. We consider various settings: the agent knowing partial truths, weakened truths and having false beliefs, and show that our definitions easily generalize to these different settings.

Nowadays, sophisticated domains are emerging which require appropriate formalisms to be specified accurately in order to reason about them. One such domain is constituted of smart contracts that have emerged in cyber physical systems as a way of enforcing formal agreements between components of these systems. Smart contracts self-execute to run and share business processes through blockchain, in decentralized systems, with many different participants. Legal contracts are in many cases complex documents, with a number of exceptions, and many subcontracts. The implementation of smart contracts based on legal contracts is a long and laborious task, that needs to include all actions, procedures, and the effects of actions related to the execution of the contract. An ongoing open problem in this area is to formally account for smart contracts using a uniform and somewhat universal formalism. This thesis proposes logical foundations to smart contracts using the Situation Calculus, a logic for reasoning about actions. Situation Calculus is one of the prominent logic-based artificial intelligence approaches that provides enough logical mechanism to specify and implement dynamic and complex systems such as contracts. Situation Calculus is suitable to show how worlds dynamically change. Smart contracts are going to be implement with Golog (written en Prolog), a Situation Calculus-based programming language for modeling complex and dynamic behaviors.

Since the proposal by Halpern and Pearl, reasoning about actual causality has gained increasing attention in artificial intelligence, ranging from domains such as model-checking and verification to reasoning about actions and knowledge. More recently, Batusov and Soutchanski proposed a notion of actual achievement cause in the situation calculus, amongst others, they can determine the cause of quantified effects in a given action history. While intuitively appealing, this notion of cause is not defined in a counterfactual perspective. In this paper, we propose a notion of cause based on counterfactual analysis. In the context of action history, we show that our notion of cause generalizes naturally to a notion of achievement cause. We analyze the relationship between our notion of the achievement cause and the achievement cause by Batusov and Soutchanski. Finally, we relate our account of cause to Halpern and Pearl's account of actual causality. Particularly, we note some nuances in applying a counterfactual viewpoint to disjunctive goals, a common thorn to definitions of actual causes.

Reasoning about the causes behind observations is crucial to the formalization of rationality. While extensive research has been conducted on root cause analysis, most studies have predominantly focused on deterministic settings. In this paper, we investigate causation in more realistic nondeterministic domains, where the agent does not have any control on and may not know the choices that are made by the environment. We build on recent preliminary work on actual causation in the nondeterministic situation calculus to formalize more sophisticated forms of reasoning about actual causes in such domains. We investigate the notions of ``Certainly Causes'' and ``Possibly Causes'' that enable the representation of actual cause for agent actions in these domains. We then show how regression in the situation calculus can be extended to reason about such notions of actual causes.

We introduce the Logic-Enhanced Language Model Agents (LELMA) framework, a novel approach to enhance the trustworthiness of social simulations that utilize large language models (LLMs). While LLMs have gained attention as agents for simulating human behaviour, their applicability in this role is limited by issues such as inherent hallucinations and logical inconsistencies. LELMA addresses these challenges by integrating LLMs with symbolic AI, enabling logical verification of the reasoning generated by LLMs. This verification process provides corrective feedback, refining the reasoning output. The framework consists of three main components: an LLM-Reasoner for producing strategic reasoning, an LLM-Translator for mapping natural language reasoning to logic queries, and a Solver for evaluating these queries. This study focuses on decision-making in game-theoretic scenarios as a model of human interaction. Experiments involving the Hawk-Dove game, Prisoner's Dilemma, and Stag Hunt highlight the limitations of state-of-the-art LLMs, GPT-4 Omni and Gemini 1.0 Pro, in producing correct reasoning in these contexts. LELMA demonstrates high accuracy in error detection and improves the reasoning correctness of LLMs via self-refinement, particularly in GPT-4 Omni.

Representing time is crucial for cyber-physical systems and has been studied extensively in the Situation Calculus. The most commonly used approach represents time by adding a real-valued fluent $\mathit{time}(a)$ that attaches a time point to each action and consequently to each situation. We show that in this approach, checking whether there is a reachable situation that satisfies a given formula is undecidable, even if the domain of discourse is restricted to a finite set of objects. We present an alternative approach based on well-established results from timed automata theory by introducing clocks as real-valued fluents with restricted successor state axioms and comparison operators. %that only allow comparisons against fixed rationals. With this restriction, we can show that the reachability problem for finite-domain basic action theories is decidable. Finally, we apply our results on Golog program realization by presenting a decidable procedure for determining an action sequence that is a successful execution of a given program.

Planning as theorem proving in situation calculus was abandoned 50 years ago as an impossible project. But we have developed a Theorem Proving Lifted Heuristic (TPLH) planner that searches for a plan in a tree of situations using the A* search algorithm. It is controlled by a delete relaxation-based domain independent heuristic. We compare TPLH with Fast Downward (FD) and Best First Width Search (BFWS) planners over several standard benchmarks. Since our implementation of the heuristic function is not optimized, TPLH is slower than FD and BFWS. But it computes shorter plans, and it explores fewer states. We discuss previous research on planning within KR\&R and identify related directions. Thus, we show that deductive lifted heuristic planning in situation calculus is actually doable.

Fairness in machine learning is of considerable interest in recent years owing to the propensity of algorithms trained on historical data to amplify and perpetuate historical biases. In this paper, we argue for a formal reconstruction of fairness definitions, not so much to replace existing definitions but to ground their application in an epistemic setting and allow for rich environmental modelling. Consequently we look into three notions: fairness through unawareness, demographic parity and counterfactual fairness, and formalise these in the epistemic situation calculus.

Abstraction is a commonly used process to represent some low-level system by a more coarse specification with the goal to omit unnecessary details while preserving important aspects. While recent work on abstraction in the situation calculus has focused on non-probabilistic domains, we describe an approach to abstraction of probabilistic and dynamic systems. Based on a variant of the situation calculus with probabilistic belief, we define a notion of bisimulation that allows to abstract a detailed probabilistic basic action theory with noisy actuators and sensors by a possibly non-stochastic basic action theory. By doing so, we obtain abstract Golog programs that omit unnecessary details and which can be translated back to a detailed program for actual execution. This simplifies the implementation of noisy robot programs, opens up the possibility of using non-stochastic reasoning methods (e.g., planning) on probabilistic problems, and provides domain descriptions that are more easily understandable and explainable.

A robot's actions are inherently stochastic, as its sensors are noisy and its actions do not always have the intended effects. For this reason, the agent language Golog has been extended to models with degrees of belief and stochastic actions. While this allows more precise robot models, the resulting programs are much harder to comprehend, because they need to deal with the noise, e.g., by looping until some desired state has been reached with certainty, and because the resulting action traces consist of a large number of actions cluttered with sensor noise. To alleviate these issues, we propose to use abstraction. We define a high-level and nonstochastic model of the robot and then map the high-level model into the lower-level stochastic model. The resulting programs are much easier to understand, often do not require belief operators or loops, and produce much shorter action traces.