Default reasoning and neural networks

In this dissertation a formalisation of nonmonotonic reasoning, namely Default logic, is discussed. A proof theory for default logic and a variant of Default logic - Prioritised Default logic - is presented. We also pursue an investigation into the relationship between default reasoning and making inferences in a neural network. The inference problem shifts from the logical problem in Default logic to the optimisation problem in neural networks, in which maximum consistency is aimed at The inference is realised as an adaptation process that identifies and resolves conflicts between existing knowledge about the relevant world and external information. Knowledge and data are transformed into constraint equations and the nodes in the network represent propositions and constraint equations. The violation of constraints is formulated in terms of an energy function. The Hopfield network is shown to be suitable for modelling optimisation problems and default reasoning.Computer ScienceM.Sc. (Computer Science

Proceedings of the Automated Reasoning Workshop (ARW 2019)

Preface This volume contains the proceedings of ARW 2019, the twenty sixths Workshop on Automated Rea- soning (2nd{3d September 2019) hosted by the Department of Computer Science, Middlesex University, England (UK). Traditionally, this annual workshop which brings together, for a two-day intensive pro- gramme, researchers from different areas of automated reasoning, covers both traditional and emerging topics, disseminates achieved results or work in progress. During informal discussions at workshop ses- sions, the attendees, whether they are established in the Automated Reasoning community or are only at their early stages of their research career, gain invaluable feedback from colleagues. ARW always looks at the ways of strengthening links between academia, industry and government; between theoretical and practical advances. The 26th ARW is affiliated with TABLEAUX 2019 conference. These proceedings contain forteen extended abstracts contributed by the participants of the workshop and assembled in order of their presentations at the workshop. The abstracts cover a wide range of topics including the development of reasoning techniques for Agents, Model-Checking, Proof Search for classical and non-classical logics, Description Logics, development of Intelligent Prediction Models, application of Machine Learning to theorem proving, applications of AR in Cloud Computing and Networking. I would like to thank the members of the ARW Organising Committee for their advice and assis- tance. I would also like to thank the organisers of TABLEAUX/FroCoS 2019, and Andrei Popescu, the TABLEAUX Conference Chair, in particular, for the enormous work related to the organisation of this affiliation. I would also like to thank Natalia Yerashenia for helping in preparing these proceedings. London Alexander Bolotov September 201

Proceedings of the IJCAI-09 Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Action and Change

Copyright in each article is held by the authors. Please contact the authors directly for permission to reprint or use this material in any form for any purpose.The biennial workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Action and Change (NRAC) has an active and loyal community. Since its inception in 1995, the workshop has been held seven times in conjunction with IJCAI, and has experienced growing success. We hope to build on this success again this eighth year with an interesting and fruitful day of discussion. The areas of reasoning about action, non-monotonic reasoning and belief revision are among the most active research areas in Knowledge Representation, with rich inter-connections and practical applications including robotics, agentsystems, commonsense reasoning and the semantic web. This workshop provides a unique opportunity for researchers from all three fields to be brought together at a single forum with the prime objectives of communicating important recent advances in each field and the exchange of ideas. As these fundamental areas mature it is vital that researchers maintain a dialog through which they can cooperatively explore common links. The goal of this workshop is to work against the natural tendency of such rapidly advancing fields to drift apart into isolated islands of specialization. This year, we have accepted ten papers authored by a diverse international community. Each paper has been subject to careful peer review on the basis of innovation, significance and relevance to NRAC. The high quality selection of work could not have been achieved without the invaluable help of the international Program Committee. A highlight of the workshop will be our invited speaker Professor Hector Geffner from ICREA and UPF in Barcelona, Spain, discussing representation and inference in modern planning. Hector Geffner is a world leader in planning, reasoning, and knowledge representation; in addition to his many important publications, he is a Fellow of the AAAI, an associate editor of the Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research and won an ACM Distinguished Dissertation Award in 1990

Proceedings of the Joint Automated Reasoning Workshop and Deduktionstreffen: As part of the Vienna Summer of Logic – IJCAR 23-24 July 2014

Preface For many years the British and the German automated reasoning communities have successfully run independent series of workshops for anybody working in the area of automated reasoning. Although open to the general public they addressed in the past primarily the British and the German communities, respectively. At the occasion of the Vienna Summer of Logic the two series have a joint event in Vienna as an IJCAR workshop. In the spirit of the two series there will be only informal proceedings with abstracts of the works presented. These are collected in this document. We have tried to maintain the informal open atmosphere of the two series and have welcomed in particular research students to present their work. We have solicited for all work related to automated reasoning and its applications with a particular interest in work-in-progress and the presentation of half-baked ideas. As in the previous years, we have aimed to bring together researchers from all areas of automated reasoning in order to foster links among researchers from various disciplines; among theoreticians, implementers and users alike, and among international communities, this year not just the British and German communities

DRUM-II : efficient model based diagnosis of technical systems

[no abstract

Circumscriptive reasoning

We show how the non-monotonic nature of common-sense reasoning can be formalised by circumscription. Various forms of circumscription are discussed. A new form of circumscription, namely naive circumscription, is introduced in order to facilitate the comparison of the various forms. Finally, some issues connected with the automation of circumscriptive reasoning are examined.ComputingM. Sc. (Computer Science

Approaches to the reuse of plan schemata in planning formalisms

Planning in complex domains is normally a resource and time consuming process when it is purely based on first principles. Once a plan is generated it represents problem solving knowledge. It implicitly describes knowledge used by the planning system to achieve a given goal state from a particular initial state. In classical planning systems, this knowledge is often lost after the plan has been successfully executed. If such a planner has to solve the same problem again, it will spend the same planning effort to solve it and is not capable of "learning\u27; from its "experience\u27;. Therefore it seems to be useful to save generated plans for a later reuse and thus, extending the problem solving knowledge possessed by the planner. The planning knowledge can now be applied to find out whether a problem can be solved by adapting an already existing plan. The aim of this paper is to analyze the problem of plan reuse and to describe the state of the art based on a variety of approaches which might contribute to a solution of the problem. It describes the main problems and results that could be of some relevance for the integration of plan reuse into a deductive planning formalism. As a result, this description of the state of the art leads to a deeper insight into the complex problem of plan reuse, but also shows that the problem itself is still far from being solved