| Total: 64

In recent years the possibility of relaxing the so-called Faithfulness assumption in automated causal discovery has been investigated. The investigation showed (1) that the Faithfulness assumption can be weakened in various ways that in an important sense preserve its power, and (2) that weakening of Faithfulness may help to speed up methods based on Answer Set Programming. However, this line of work has so far only considered the discovery of causal models without latent variables. In this paper, we study weakenings of Faithfulness for constraint-based discovery of semi-Markovian causal models, which accommodate the possibility of latent variables, and show that both (1) and (2) remain the case in this more realistic setting.

Conditional preference networks (CP-nets) express qualitative preferences over features of interest.A Boolean CP-net can express that a feature is preferable under some conditions, as long as all other features have the same value.This is often a convenient representation, but sometimes one would also like to express a preference for maximizing a set of features, or some other objective function on the features of interest.ASPRIN is a flexible framework for preferences in ASP, where one can mix heterogeneous preference relations, and this paper reports on the integration of Boolean CP-nets.In general, we extend ASPRIN with a preference program for CP-nets in order to compute most preferred answer sets via an iterative algorithm.For the specific case of acyclic CP-nets, we provide an approximation by partially ordered set preferences, which are in turn normalized by ASPRIN to take advantage of several highly optimized algorithms implemented by ASP solvers for computing optimal solutions.Finally, we take advantage of a linear-time computable function to address dominance testing for tree-shaped CP-nets.

Several argument-based logics have been defined for handling inconsistency in propositional knowledge bases. We show that they may miss intuitive consequences, and discuss two sources of this drawback: the definition of logical argument i) may prevent formulas from being justified, and ii) may allow irrelevant information in argument's support. We circumvent these two issues by considering a general definition of argument and compiling each argument. A compilation amounts to forgetting in an argument's support any irrelevant variable. This operation returns zero, one or several concise arguments, which we then use in an instance of Dung's abstract framework. We show that the resulting logic satisfies existing rationality postulates, namely consistency and closure under deduction. Furthermore, it is more productive than the existing argument-based and coherence-based logics.

Notwithstanding the extensive work on iterated belief revision, there is, still, no fully satisfactory solution within the classical AGM paradigm. The seminal work of Darwiche and Pearl (DP approach, for short) remains the most dominant, despite its well-documented shortcomings. In this article, we make further observations on the DP approach. Firstly, we prove that the DP postulates are, in a strong sense, inconsistent with Parikh's relevance-sensitive axiom (P), extending previous initial conflicts. Immediate consequences of this result are that an entire class of intuitive revision operators, which includes Dalal's operator, violates the DP postulates, as well as that the Independence postulate and Spohn's conditionalization are inconsistent with (P). Lastly, we show that the DP postulates allow for more revision polices than the ones that can be captured by identifying belief states with total preorders over possible worlds, a fact implying that a preference ordering (over possible worlds) is an insufficient representation for a belief state.

Linear temporal logic over finite traces is used as a formalism for temporal specification in automated planning, process modelling and (runtime) verification. In this paper, we investigate first-order temporal logic over finite traces, lifting some known results to a more expressive setting. Satisfiability in the two-variable monodic fragment is shown to be EXPSPACE-complete, as for the infinite trace case, while it decreases to NEXPTIME when we consider finite traces bounded in the number of instants. This leads to new complexity results for temporal description logics over finite traces. We further investigate satisfiability and equivalences of formulas under a model-theoretic perspective, providing a set of semantic conditions that characterise when the distinction between reasoning over finite and infinite traces can be blurred. Finally, we apply these conditions to planning and verification.

Evidence logics model agents' belief revision process as they incorporate and aggregate information obtained from multiple sources. This information is captured using neighbourhood structures, where individual neighbourhoods represent pieces of evidence. In this paper we propose an extended framework which allows one to explicitly quantify either the number of evidence sets, or effort, needed to justify a given proposition, provide a complete deductive calculus and a proof of decidability, and show how existing frameworks can be embedded into ours.

Among the most expressive knowledge representation formalisms are the description logics of the Z family. For well-behaved fragments of ZOIQ, entailment of positive two-way regular path queries is well known to be 2EXPTIME-complete under the proviso of unary encoding of numbers in cardinality constraints. We show that this assumption can be dropped without an increase in complexity and EXPTIME-completeness can be achieved when bounding the number of query atoms, using a novel reduction from query entailment to knowledge base satisfiability. These findings allow to strengthen other results regarding query entailment and query containment problems in very expressive description logics. Our results also carry over to GC2, the two-variable guarded fragment of first-order logic with counting quantifiers, for which hitherto only conjunctive query entailment has been investigated.

We introduce a way of reasoning about preferences represented as pairwise comparative statements, based on a very simple yet appealing principle: cancelling out common values across statements. We formalize and streamline this procedure with argument schemes. As a result, any conclusion drawn by means of this approach comes along with a justification. It turns out that the statements which can be inferred through this process form a proper preference relation. More precisely, it corresponds to a necessary preference relation under the assumption of additive utilities. We show the inference task can be performed in polynomial time in this setting, but that finding a minimal length explanation is NP-complete.

Bayesian games offer a suitable framework for games where the utility degrees are additive in essence. This approach does nevertheless not apply to ordinal games, where the utility degrees do not capture more than a ranking, nor to situations of decision under qualitative uncertainty. This paper proposes a representation framework for ordinal games under possibilistic incomplete information (π-games) and extends the fundamental notion of Nash equilibrium (NE) to this framework. We show that deciding whether a NE exists is a difficult problem (NP-hard) and propose a Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) encoding. Experiments on variants of the GAMUT problems confirm the feasibility of this approach.

Data integration systems allow users to access data sitting in multiple sources by means of queries over a global schema, related to the sources via mappings. Datasources often contain sensitive information, and thus an analysis is needed to verify that a schema satisfies a privacy policy, given as a set of queries whose answers should not be accessible to users. Such an analysis should take into account not only knowledge that an attacker may have about the mappings, but also what they may know about the semantics of the sources.In this paper, we show that source constraints can have a dramatic impact on disclosure analysis. We study the problem of determining whether a given data integration system discloses a source query to an attacker in the presence of constraints, providing both lower and upper bounds on source-aware disclosure analysis.

In this paper, we study reasoning with existential rules in a setting where some of the predicates may be closed (i.e., their content is fully specified by the data instance) and the remaining open predicates are interpreted under active-domain semantics. We show, unsurprisingly, that the main reasoning tasks (satisfiability and certainty / possibility of Boolean queries) are all intractable in data complexity in the general case. However, several positive (PTIME data) results are obtained for the linear fragment, and interestingly, these tractability results hold also for various extensions, e.g., with negated closed atoms and disjunctive rule heads. This motivates us to take a closer look at the linear fragment, exploring its expressivity and defining a fixpoint extension to approximate non-linear rules.

Generalized planning is about finding plans that solve collections of planning instances, often infinite collections, rather than single instances. Recently it has been shown how to reduce the planning problem for generalized planning to the planning problem for a qualitative numerical problem; the latter being a reformulation that simultaneously captures all the instances in the collection. An important thread of research thus consists in finding such reformulations, or abstractions, automatically. A recent proposal learns the abstractions inductively from a finite and small sample of transitions from instances in the collection. However, as in all inductive processes, the learned abstraction is not guaranteed to be correct for the whole collection. In this work we address this limitation by performing an analysis of the abstraction with respect to the collection, and show how to obtain formal guarantees for generalization. These guarantees, in the form of first-order formulas, may be used to 1) define subcollections of instances on which the abstraction is guaranteed to be sound, 2) obtain necessary conditions for generalization under certain assumptions, and 3) do automated synthesis of complex invariants for planning problems. Our framework is general, it can be extended or combined with other approaches, and it has applications that go beyond generalized planning.

We study the approximation of a description logic (DL) ontology in a less expressive DL, focusing on the case of Horn DLs. It is common to construct such approximations in an ad hoc way in practice and the resulting incompleteness is typically neither analyzed nor understood. In this paper, we show how to construct complete approximations. These are typically infinite or of excessive size and thus cannot be used directly in applications, but our results provide an important theoretical foundation that enables informed decisions when constructing incomplete approximations in practice.

We study the notion of boundedness in the context positive existential rules, that is, wether there exists an upper bound to the depth of the chase procedure, that is independent from the initial instance. By focussing our attention on the oblivious and the semi-oblivious chase variants, we give a characterization of boundedness in terms of FO-rewritability and chase termination. We show that it is decidable to recognize if a set of rules is bounded for several classes of rules and outline the complexity of the problem.

We introduce and study SL[F], a quantitative extension of SL (Strategy Logic), one of the most natural and expressive logics describing strategic behaviours. The satisfaction value of an SL[F] formula is a real value in [0,1], reflecting ``how much'' or ``how well'' the strategic on-going objectives of the underlying agents are satisfied. We demonstrate the applications of SL[F] in quantitative reasoning about multi-agent systems, by showing how it can express concepts of stability in multi-agent systems, and how it generalises some fuzzy temporal logics. We also provide a model-checking algorithm for ourlogic, based on a quantitative extension of Quantified CTL*.

We establish the precise complexity of the model checking problem for the main logics of knowledge and time. While this problem was known to be non-elementary for agents with perfect recall, with a number of exponentials that increases with the alternation of knowledge operators, the precise complexity of the problem when the maximum alternation is fixed has been an open problem for twenty years. We close it by establishing improved upper bounds for CTL* with knowledge, and providing matching lower bounds that also apply for epistemic extensions of LTL and CTL.

In this paper, we investigate non-Markovian Nondeterministic Fully Observable Planning Domains (NMFONDs), variants of Nondeterministic Fully Observable Planning Domains (FONDs) where the next state is determined by the full history leading to the current state. In particular, we introduce TFONDs which are NMFONDs where conditions on the history are succinctly and declaratively specified using the linear-time temporal logic on finite traces LTLf and its extension LDLf. We provide algorithms for planning in TFONDs for general LTLf/LDLf goals, and establish tight complexity bounds w.r.t. the domain representation and the goal, separately. We also show that TFONDs are able to capture all NMFONDs in which the dependency on the history is "finite state". Finally, we show that TFONDs also capture Partially Observable Nondeterministic Planning Domains (PONDs), but without referring to unobservable variables.

Identification of causal direction between a causal-effect pair from observed data has recently attracted much attention. Various methods based on functional causal models have been proposed to solve this problem, by assuming the causal process satisfies some (structural) constraints and showing that the reverse direction violates such constraints. The nonlinear additive noise model has been demonstrated to be effective for this purpose, but the model class is not transitive--even if each direct causal relation follows this model, indirect causal influences, which result from omitted intermediate causal variables and are frequently encountered in practice, do not necessarily follow the model constraints; as a consequence, the nonlinear additive noise model may fail to correctly discover causal direction. In this work, we propose a cascade nonlinear additive noise model to represent such causal influences--each direct causal relation follows the nonlinear additive noise model but we observe only the initial cause and final effect. We further propose a method to estimate the model, including the unmeasured intermediate variables, from data, under the variational auto-encoder framework. Our theoretical results show that with our model, causal direction is identifiable under suitable technical conditions on the data generation process. Simulation results illustrate the power of the proposed method in identifying indirect causal relations across various settings, and experimental results on real data suggest that the proposed model and method greatly extend the applicability of causal discovery based on functional causal models in nonlinear cases.

Ontology-based data access (OBDA) is a popular paradigm for querying heterogeneous data sources by connecting them through mappings to an ontology. In OBDA, it is often difficult to reconstruct why a tuple occurs in the answer of a query. We address this challenge by enriching OBDA with provenance semirings, taking inspiration from database theory. In particular, we investigate the problems of (i) deciding whether a provenance annotated OBDA instance entails a provenance annotated conjunctive query, and (ii) computing a polynomial representing the provenance of a query entailed by a provenance annotated OBDA instance. Differently from pure databases, in our case, these polynomials may be infinite. To regain finiteness, we consider idempotent semirings, and study the complexity in the case of DL-LiteR ontologies. We implement Task (ii) in a state-of-the-art OBDA system and show the practical feasibility of the approach through an extensive evaluation against two popular benchmarks.

We propose that modern existential rule reasoners can enable fully declarative implementations of rule-based inference methods in knowledge representation, in the sense that a particular calculus is captured by a fixed set of rules that can be evaluated on varying inputs (encoded as facts). We introduce Datalog(S) -- Datalog with support for sets -- as a surface language for such translations, and show that it can be captured in a decidable fragment of existential rules. We then implement several known inference methods in Datalog(S), and empirically show that an existing existential rule reasoner can thus be used to solve practical reasoning problems.

In this paper we introduce and investigate a very basic semantics for conditionals that can be used to define a broad class of conditional reasoning. We show that it encompasses the most popular kinds of conditional reasoning developed in logic-based KR. It turns out that the semantics we propose is appropriate for a structural analysis of those conditionals that do not satisfy the property of Right Weakening. We show that it can be used for the further development of an analysis of the notion of relevance in conditional reasoning.

Ontology-mediated query answering is an extensively studied paradigm, which aims at improving query answers with the use of a logical theory. As a form of logical entailment, ontology-mediated query answering is fully interpretable, which makes it possible to derive explanations for query answers. Surprisingly, however, explaining answers for ontology-mediated queries has received little attention for ontology languages based on existential rules. In this paper, we close this gap, and study the problem of explaining query answers in terms of minimal subsets of database facts. We provide a thorough complexity analysis for several decision problems associated with minimal explanations under existential rules.

We study the problem of associating formal semantic descriptions to data services. We base our proposal on the Ontology-based Data Access paradigm, where a domain ontology is used to provide a semantic layer mapped to the data sources of an organization. The basic idea is to explain the semantics of a data service in terms of a query over the ontology. We illustrate a formal framework for this problem, based on the notion of source-to-ontology (s-to-o) rewriting, which comes in three variants, called sound, complete and perfect, respectively. We present a thorough complexity analysis of two computational problems, namely verification (checking whether a query is an s-to-o rewriting of a given data service), and computation (computing an s-to-o rewriting of a data service).

Our goal is to measure the likelihood of the satisfaction of numerical constraints in the absence of prior information. We study expressive constraints, involving arithmetic and complex numerical functions, and even quantification over numbers. Such problems arise in processing incomplete data, or analyzing conditions in programs without a priori bounds on variables. We show that for constraints on n variables, the proper way to define such a measure is as the limit of the part of the n-dimensional ball that consists of points satisfying the constraints, when the radius increases. We prove that the existence of such a limit is closely related to the notion of o-minimality from model theory. Thus, for constraints definable with the usual arithmetic and exponentiation, the likelihood is well defined, but adding trigonometric functions is problematic. We look at computing and approximating such likelihoods for order and linear constraints, and prove an impossibility result for approximating with multiplicative error. However, as the likelihood is a number between 0 and 1, an approximation scheme with additive error is acceptable, and we give it for arbitrary linear constraints.

Learning systems often face a critical challenge when applied to settings that differ from those under which they were initially trained. In particular, the assumption that both the source/training and the target/deployment domains follow the same causal mechanisms and observed distributions is commonly violated. This implies that the robustness and convergence guarantees usually expected from these methods are no longer attainable. In this paper, we study these violations through causal lens using the formalism of statistical transportability [Pearl and Bareinboim, 2011] (PB, for short). We start by proving sufficient and necessary graphical conditions under which a probability distribution observed in the source domain can be extrapolated to the target one, where strictly less data is available. We develop the first sound and complete procedure for statistical transportability, which formally closes the problem introduced by PB. Further, we tackle the general challenge of identification of stochastic interventions from observational data [Sec.~4.4, Pearl, 2000]. This problem has been solved in the context of atomic interventions using Pearl's do-calculus, which lacks complete treatment in the stochastic case. We prove completeness of stochastic identification by constructing a reduction of any instance of this problem to an instance of statistical transportability, closing the problem.