The Divide-and-Conquer Subgoal-Ordering Algorithm for Speeding up Logic Inference

It is common to view programs as a combination of logic and control: the logic part defines what the program must do, the control part -- how to do it. The Logic Programming paradigm was developed with the intention of separating the logic from the control. Recently, extensive research has been conducted on automatic generation of control for logic programs. Only a few of these works considered the issue of automatic generation of control for improving the efficiency of logic programs. In this paper we present a novel algorithm for automatic finding of lowest-cost subgoal orderings. The algorithm works using the divide-and-conquer strategy. The given set of subgoals is partitioned into smaller sets, based on co-occurrence of free variables. The subsets are ordered recursively and merged, yielding a provably optimal order. We experimentally demonstrate the utility of the algorithm by testing it in several domains, and discuss the possibilities of its cooperation with other existing methods

Proceedings of the Workshop on Change of Representation and Problem Reformulation

The proceedings of the third Workshop on Change of representation and Problem Reformulation is presented. In contrast to the first two workshops, this workshop was focused on analytic or knowledge-based approaches, as opposed to statistical or empirical approaches called 'constructive induction'. The organizing committee believes that there is a potential for combining analytic and inductive approaches at a future date. However, it became apparent at the previous two workshops that the communities pursuing these different approaches are currently interested in largely non-overlapping issues. The constructive induction community has been holding its own workshops, principally in conjunction with the machine learning conference. While this workshop is more focused on analytic approaches, the organizing committee has made an effort to include more application domains. We have greatly expanded from the origins in the machine learning community. Participants in this workshop come from the full spectrum of AI application domains including planning, qualitative physics, software engineering, knowledge representation, and machine learning

A survey of large-scale reasoning on the Web of data

As more and more data is being generated by sensor networks, social media and organizations, the Webinterlinking this wealth of information becomes more complex. This is particularly true for the so-calledWeb of Data, in which data is semantically enriched and interlinked using ontologies. In this large anduncoordinated environment, reasoning can be used to check the consistency of the data and of asso-ciated ontologies, or to infer logical consequences which, in turn, can be used to obtain new insightsfrom the data. However, reasoning approaches need to be scalable in order to enable reasoning over theentire Web of Data. To address this problem, several high-performance reasoning systems, whichmainly implement distributed or parallel algorithms, have been proposed in the last few years. Thesesystems differ significantly; for instance in terms of reasoning expressivity, computational propertiessuch as completeness, or reasoning objectives. In order to provide afirst complete overview of thefield,this paper reports a systematic review of such scalable reasoning approaches over various ontologicallanguages, reporting details about the methods and over the conducted experiments. We highlight theshortcomings of these approaches and discuss some of the open problems related to performing scalablereasoning

Adaptation-based programming

Partial programming is a field of study where users specify an outline or skeleton of a program, but leave various parts undefined. The undefined parts are then completed by an external mechanism to form a complete program. Adaptation-Based Programming (ABP) is a method of partial programming that utilizes techniques from the field of reinforcement learning (RL), a subfield of machine learning, to find good completions of those partial programs. An ABP user writes a partial program in some host programming language. At various points where the programmer is uncertain of the best course of action, they include choices that non-deterministically select amongst several options. Additionally, users indicate program success through a reward construct somewhere in their program. The resulting non-deterministic program is completed by treating it as an equivalent RL problem and solving the problem with techniques from that field. Over repeated executions, the RL algorithms within the ABP system will learn to select choices at various points that maximize the reward received. This thesis explores various aspects of ABP such as the semantics of different implementations, including different design trade-offs encountered with each approach. The goal of all approaches is to present a model for programs that adapt to their environment based on the points of uncertainty within the program that the programmer has indicated. The first approach presented in this work is an implementation of ABP as a domain-specific language embedded within a functional language. This language provides constructs for common patterns and situations that arise in adaptive programs. This language proves to be compositional and to foster rapid experimentation with different adaptation methods (e.g. learning algorithms). A second approach presents an implementation of ABP as an object-oriented library that models adaptive programs as formal systems from the field of RL called Markov Decision Processes (MDPs). This approach abstracts away many of the details of the learning algorithm from the casual user and uses a fixed learning algorithm to control the program adaptation rather than allowing it to vary. This abstraction results in an easier-to-use library, but limits the scenarios that ABP can effectively be used in. Moreover, treating adaptive programs as MDPs leads to some unintuitive situations where seemingly reasonably programs fail to adapt efficiently. This work addresses this problem with algorithms that analyze the adaptive program's structure and data flow to boost the rate at which these problematic adaptive programs learn thus increasing the number of problems that ABP can effectively be used to solve

Goal Reasoning: Papers from the ACS workshop

This technical report contains the 11 accepted papers presented at the Workshop on Goal Reasoning, which was held as part of the 2013 Conference on Advances in Cognitive Systems (ACS-13) in Baltimore, Maryland on 14 December 2013. This is the third in a series of workshops related to this topic, the first of which was the AAAI-10 Workshop on Goal-Directed Autonomy while the second was the Self-Motivated Agents (SeMoA) Workshop, held at Lehigh University in November 2012. Our objective for holding this meeting was to encourage researchers to share information on the study, development, integration, evaluation, and application of techniques related to goal reasoning, which concerns the ability of an intelligent agent to reason about, formulate, select, and manage its goals/objectives. Goal reasoning differs from frameworks in which agents are told what goals to achieve, and possibly how goals can be decomposed into subgoals, but not how to dynamically and autonomously decide what goals they should pursue. This constraint can be limiting for agents that solve tasks in complex environments when it is not feasible to manually engineer/encode complete knowledge of what goal(s) should be pursued for every conceivable state. Yet, in such environments, states can be reached in which actions can fail, opportunities can arise, and events can otherwise take place that strongly motivate changing the goal(s) that the agent is currently trying to achieve. This topic is not new; researchers in several areas have studied goal reasoning (e.g., in the context of cognitive architectures, automated planning, game AI, and robotics). However, it has infrequently been the focus of intensive study, and (to our knowledge) no other series of meetings has focused specifically on goal reasoning. As shown in these papers, providing an agent with the ability to reason about its goals can increase performance measures for some tasks. Recent advances in hardware and software platforms (involving the availability of interesting/complex simulators or databases) have increasingly permitted the application of intelligent agents to tasks that involve partially observable and dynamically-updated states (e.g., due to unpredictable exogenous events), stochastic actions, multiple (cooperating, neutral, or adversarial) agents, and other complexities. Thus, this is an appropriate time to foster dialogue among researchers with interests in goal reasoning. Research on goal reasoning is still in its early stages; no mature application of it yet exists (e.g., for controlling autonomous unmanned vehicles or in a deployed decision aid). However, it appears to have a bright future. For example, leaders in the automated planning community have specifically acknowledged that goal reasoning has a prominent role among intelligent agents that act on their own plans, and it is gathering increasing attention from roboticists and cognitive systems researchers. In addition to a survey, the papers in this workshop relate to, among other topics, cognitive architectures and models, environment modeling, game AI, machine learning, meta-reasoning, planning, selfmotivated systems, simulation, and vehicle control. The authors discuss a wide range of issues pertaining to goal reasoning, including representations and reasoning methods for dynamically revising goal priorities. We hope that readers will find that this theme for enhancing agent autonomy to be appealing and relevant to their own interests, and that these papers will spur further investigations on this important yet (mostly) understudied topic

Computer Aided Verification

This open access two-volume set LNCS 13371 and 13372 constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 34rd International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, CAV 2022, which was held in Haifa, Israel, in August 2022. The 40 full papers presented together with 9 tool papers and 2 case studies were carefully reviewed and selected from 209 submissions. The papers were organized in the following topical sections: Part I: Invited papers; formal methods for probabilistic programs; formal methods for neural networks; software Verification and model checking; hyperproperties and security; formal methods for hardware, cyber-physical, and hybrid systems. Part II: Probabilistic techniques; automata and logic; deductive verification and decision procedures; machine learning; synthesis and concurrency. This is an open access book

The 2011 International Planning Competition

After a 3 years gap, the 2011 edition of the IPC involved a total of 55 planners, some of them versions of the same planner, distributed among four tracks: the sequential satisficing track (27 planners submitted out of 38 registered), the sequential multicore track (8 planners submitted out of 12 registered), the sequential optimal track (12 planners submitted out of 24 registered) and the temporal satisficing track (8 planners submitted out of 14 registered). Three more tracks were open to participation: temporal optimal, preferences satisficing and preferences optimal. Unfortunately the number of submitted planners did not allow these tracks to be finally included in the competition. A total of 55 people were participating, grouped in 31 teams. Participants came from Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Spain, UK and USA. For the sequential tracks 14 domains, with 20 problems each, were selected, while the temporal one had 12 domains, also with 20 problems each. Both new and past domains were included. As in previous competitions, domains and problems were unknown for participants and all the experimentation was carried out by the organizers. To run the competition a cluster of eleven 64-bits computers (Intel XEON 2.93 Ghz Quad core processor) using Linux was set up. Up to 1800 seconds, 6 GB of RAM memory and 750 GB of hard disk were available for each planner to solve a problem. This resulted in 7540 computing hours (about 315 days), plus a high number of hours devoted to preliminary experimentation with new domains, reruns and bugs fixing. The detailed results of the competition, the software used for automating most tasks, the source code of all the participating planners and the description of domains and problems can be found at the competition’s web page: http://www.plg.inf.uc3m.es/ipc2011-deterministicThis booklet summarizes the participants on the Deterministic Track of the International Planning Competition (IPC) 2011. Papers describing all the participating planners are included

Creative problem solving and automated discovery : an analysis of psychological and AI research

Since creativity is the ability to produce something novel and unexpected, it has always fascinated people. Consequently, efforts have been made in AI to invent creative computer programs. At the same time much effort was spent in psychology to analyze the foundations of human creative behaviour. However, until now efforts in AI to produce creative programs have been largely independent from psychological research. In this study, we try to combine both fields of research. First, we give a short summary of the main results of psychological research on creativity. Based on these results we propose a model of the creative process that emphasizes its information processing aspects. Then we describe AI approaches to the implementation of the various components of this model and contrast them with the results of psychological research. As a result we will not only reveal weaknesses of current AI systems hindering them in achieving creativity, but we will also make plausible suggestions - based on psychological research - for overcoming these weaknesses