Representing defeasibility is an important issue in common sense reasoning. In reasoning about action and change, this issue becomes more difficult because domain and action related defeasible information may conflict with general inertia rules. Furthermore, different types of defeasible information may also interfere with each other during the reasoning. In this paper, we develop a prioritized logic programming approach to handle defeasibilities in reasoning about action. In particular, we propose three action languages AT ^ 0 , AT ^ 1 and AT ^ 2 which handle three types of defeasibilities in action domains named defeasible constraints, defeasible observations and actions with defeasible and abnormal effects respectively. Each language with a higher superscript can be viewed as an extension of the language with a lower superscript. These action languages inherit the simple syntax of A language but their semantics is developed in terms of transition systems where transition functions are defined based on prioritized logic programs. By illustrating various examples, we show that our approach eventually provides a powerful mechanism to handle various defeasibilities in temporal prediction and postdiction. We also investigate semantic properties of these three action languages and characterize classes of action domains that present more desirable solutions in reasoning about action within the underlying action languages.
An early effort on handling defeasible causal rules in reasoning about action was due to the author's previous work @cite_2 , in which the author identified the restriction of McCain and Turner's causal theory of actions @cite_11 and claimed that in general a causal rule should be treated as a defeasible rule in order to solve the ramification problem properly. In @cite_2 , constraints ) and ) simply correspond to defaults @math and @math respectively. By combining Reiter's default theory @cite_10 and Winslett's PMA @cite_21 the author developed a causality-based minimal change principle for reasoning about action and change which subsumes McCain and Turner's causal theory.
@cite_11 @cite_10 @cite_21 @cite_2
2017479918 2156092566 2150014546 2542071751 2083689856 2588168955 2143602574 2321919568 1961009203 1983914828 2154988829 204991199 2951554701 175258934 2765657436 2050335327 2074374546 2027956524 2716974933 2550342065
Recent research on reasoning about action has shown that the traditional logic form of domain constraints is problematic to represent ramifications of actions that are related to causality of domains. To handle this problem properly, as proposed by some researchers, it is necessary to describe causal relations of domains explicitly in action theories. In this paper, we address this problem from a new point of view. Specifically, unlike other researchers viewing causal relations as some kind of inference rules, we distinguish causal relations between defeasible and non-defeasible cases. It turns out that a causal theory in our formalism can be specified by using Reiter's default logic. Based on this idea, we propose a causality-based minimal change approach for representing effects of actions, and argue that our approach provides more plausible solutions for the ramification and qualification problems compared with other related work. We also describe a logic programming approximation to compute causal theories of actions which provides an implementational basis for our approach. In this dissertation I present a formal approach to defeasible reasoning. This mathematical approach is based on the notion of specificity introduced by Poole and the general theory of warrant as presented by Pollock. General background information on the subject of Nonmonotonic Reasoning is presented and some of the shortcomings of existing systems are analyzed. We believe that the approach presented here represents a definite improvement over past systems. The main contribution of this thesis is a formally precise, elegant, clean, well-defined system which exhibits a correct behavior when applied to the benchmark examples in the literature. Model-theoretic semantical issues have been addressed. The investigation on the theoretical issues has aided the study of how this kind of reasoner can be realized on a computer. An interpreter of a restricted language, an extension of Horn clauses with defeasible rules, has been implemented. Finally, the implementation details are discussed. Michotte's theory of ampliation suggests that causal relationships are perceived by objects animated under appropriate spatiotemporal conditions. We extend the theory of ampliation and propose that the immediate perception of complex causal relations is also dependent on a set of structural and temporal rules. We designed animated representations, based on Michotte's rules, for showing complex causal relationships or causal semantics. In this paper we describe a set of animations for showing semantics such as causal amplification, causal strength, causal dampening, and causal multiplicity. In a two part study we compared the effectiveness of both the static and animated representations. The first study (N=44) asked participants to recall passages that were previously displayed using both types of representations. Participants were 8 more accurate in recalling causal semantics when they were presented using animations instead of static graphs. In the second study (N=112) we evaluated the intuitiveness of the representations. Our results showed that while users were as accurate with the static graphs as with the animations, they were 9 faster in matching the correct causal statements in the animated condition. Overall our results show that animated diagrams that are designed based on perceptual rules such as those proposed by Michotte have the potential to facilitate comprehension of complex causal relations. Motivated by online recommendation and advertising systems, we consider a causal model for stochastic contextual bandits with a latent low-dimensional confounder. In our model, there are @math observed contexts and @math arms of the bandit. The observed context influences the reward obtained through a latent confounder variable with cardinality @math ( @math ). The arm choice and the latent confounder causally determines the reward while the observed context is correlated with the confounder. Under this model, the @math mean reward matrix @math (for each context in @math and each arm in @math ) factorizes into non-negative factors @math ( @math ) and @math ( @math ). This insight enables us to propose an @math -greedy NMF-Bandit algorithm that designs a sequence of interventions (selecting specific arms), that achieves a balance between learning this low-dimensional structure and selecting the best arm to minimize regret. Our algorithm achieves a regret of @math at time @math , as compared to @math for conventional contextual bandits, assuming a constant gap between the best arm and the rest for each context. These guarantees are obtained under mild sufficiency conditions on the factors that are weaker versions of the well-known Statistical RIP condition. We further propose a class of generative models that satisfy our sufficient conditions, and derive a lower bound of @math . These are the first regret guarantees for online matrix completion with bandit feedback, when the rank is greater than one. We further compare the performance of our algorithm with the state of the art, on synthetic and real world data-sets. Inferring the causal structure that links n observables is usually based upon detecting statistical dependences and choosing simple graphs that make the joint measure Markovian. Here we argue why causal inference is also possible when the sample size is one. We develop a theory how to generate causal graphs explaining similarities between single objects. To this end, we replace the notion of conditional stochastic independence in the causal Markov condition with the vanishing of conditional algorithmic mutual information and describe the corresponding causal inference rules. We explain why a consistent reformulation of causal inference in terms of algorithmic complexity implies a new inference principle that takes into account also the complexity of conditional probability densities, making it possible to select among Markov equivalent causal graphs. This insight provides a theoretical foundation of a heuristic principle proposed in earlier work. We also sketch some ideas on how to replace Kolmogorov complexity with decidable complexity criteria. This can be seen as an algorithmic analog of replacing the empirically undecidable question of statistical independence with practical independence tests that are based on implicit or explicit assumptions on the underlying distribution. From doctors diagnosing patients to judges setting bail, experts often base their decisions on experience and intuition rather than on statistical models. While understandable, relying on intuition over models has often been found to result in inferior outcomes. Here we present a new method, select-regress-and-round, for constructing simple rules that perform well for complex decisions. These rules take the form of a weighted checklist, can be applied mentally, and nonetheless rival the performance of modern machine learning algorithms. Our method for creating these rules is itself simple, and can be carried out by practitioners with basic statistics knowledge. We demonstrate this technique with a detailed case study of judicial decisions to release or detain defendants while they await trial. In this application, as in many policy settings, the effects of proposed decision rules cannot be directly observed from historical data: if a rule recommends releasing a defendant that the judge in reality detained, we do not observe what would have happened under the proposed action. We address this key counterfactual estimation problem by drawing on tools from causal inference. We find that simple rules significantly outperform judges and are on par with decisions derived from random forests trained on all available features. Generalizing to 22 varied decision-making domains, we find this basic result replicates. We conclude with an analytical framework that helps explain why these simple decision rules perform as well as they do. We present a formal framework that combines high-level representation and causality-based reasoning with low-level geometric reasoning and motion planning. The frame-work features bilateral interaction between task and motion planning, and embeds geometric reasoning in causal reasoning, thanks to several advantages inherited from its underlying components. In particular, our choice of using a causality-based high-level formalism for describing action domains allows us to represent ramifications and state transition constraints, and embed in such formal domain descriptions externally defined functions implemented in some programming language (e.g., C++). Moreover, given such a domain description, the causal reasoner based on this formalism (i.e., the Causal Calculator) allows us to compute optimal solutions (e.g., shortest plans) for elaborate planning prediction problems with temporal constraints. Utilizing these features of high-level representation and reasoning, we can combine causal reasoning, motion planning and geometric planning to find feasible kinematic solutions to task-level problems. In our framework, the causal reasoner guides the motion planner by finding an optimal task-plan; if there is no feasible kinematic solution for that task-plan then the motion planner guides the causal reasoner by modifying the planning problem with new temporal constraints. Furthermore, while computing a task-plan, the causal reasoner takes into account geometric models and kinematic relations by means of external predicates implemented for geometric reasoning (e.g., to check some collisions); in that sense the geometric reasoner guides the causal reasoner to find feasible kinematic solutions. We illustrate an application of this framework to robotic manipulation, with two pantograph robots on a complex assembly task that requires concurrent execution of actions. A short video of this application accompanies the paper. Causal reasoning plays an essential role in both informal and formal human decision-making. Causality itself as well as human understanding of causality is imprecise, sometimes necessarily so. A common sense understanding of the world tells us that we have to deal with imprecision, uncertainty and imperfect knowledge. A difficulty is striking a good balance between precise formalism and commonsense imprecise reality. An algorithmic method of accommodating imprecision in causality is needed. Today, data mining holds the promise of extracting unsuspected information from very large databases. However, the most common data mining rule forms do not express a causal relationship. Without understanding the underlying causality, a naive use of data mining rules can lead to undesirable actions. Mining for association rules in market basket data has proved a fruitful area of research. Measures such as conditional probability (confidence) and correlation have been used to infer rules of the form “the existence of item A implies the existence of item B.” However, such rules indicate only a statistical relationship between A and B. They do not specify the nature of the relationship: whether the presence of A causes the presence of B, or the converse, or some other attribute or phenomenon causes both to appear together. In applications, knowing such causal relationships is extremely useful for enhancing understanding and effecting change. While distinguishing causality from correlation is a truly difficult problem, recent work in statistics and Bayesian learning provide some avenues of attack. In these fields, the goal has generally been to learn complete causal models, which are essentially impossible to learn in large-scale data mining applications with a large number of variables. In this paper, we consider the problem of determining casual relationships, instead of mere associations, when mining market basket data. We identify some problems with the direct application of Bayesian learning ideas to mining large databases, concerning both the scalability of algorithms and the appropriateness of the statistical techniques, and introduce some initial ideas for dealing with these problems. We present experimental results from applying our algorithms on several large, real-world data sets. The results indicate that the approach proposed here is both computationally feasible and successful in identifying interesting causal structures. An interesting outcome is that it is perhaps easier to infer the lack of causality than to infer causality, information that is useful in preventing erroneous decision making. In this paper we recast the classical Darondeau---Degano's causal semantics of concurrency in a coalgebraic setting, where we derive a compact model. Our construction is inspired by the one of Montanari and Pistore yielding causal automata, but we show that it is instance of an existing categorical framework for modeling the semantics of nominal calculi, whose relevance is further demonstrated. The key idea is to represent events as names, and the occurrence of a new event as name generation. We model causal semantics as a coalgebra over a presheaf, along the lines of the Fiore---Turi approach to the semantics of nominal calculi. More specifically, we take a suitable category of finite posets, representing causal relations over events, and we equip it with an endofunctor that allocates new events and relates them to their causes. Presheaves over this category express the relationship between processes and causal relations among the processes' events. We use the allocation operator to define a category of well-behaved coalgebras: it models the occurrence of a new event along each transition. Then we turn the causal transition relation into a coalgebra in this category, where labels only exhibit maximal events with respect to the source states' poset, and we show that its bisimilarity is essentially Darondeau---Degano's strong causal bisimilarity. This coalgebra is still infinite-state, but we exploit the equivalence between coalgebras over a class of presheaves and History Dependent automata to derive a compact representation, where states only retain the poset of the most recent events for each atomic subprocess, and are isomorphic up to order-preserving permutations. Remarkably, this reduction of states is automatically performed along the equivalence. Attribution theorists typically have conceived the attribution process in terms of universal laws of cognitive functioning, independent of social interaction. In this paper we argue for the notion, grounded in recent ordinary language philosophy, that any consideration of the form of everyday explanation must take into account its function as an answer to a ‘why’ question within a conversational framework. Experiment 1 provides support for the idea that speakers should identify as causally relevant that necessary condition for the occurrence of an event about which the enquirer is ignorant. Experiment 2 replicates this basic finding and further demonstrates that speakers will change their explanations to enquirers believed to be sharing different knowledge about the same target event. Experiment 2 also assessed the role of individual differences in conversational rule-following, and found in apparent contrast some previous predictions that high self-monitoring individuals were no more likely than lows to tailor their explanations to suit the enquirer's knowledge state. If anything, the reverse occurred. Taken together, these experiments support the central contention of the abnormal conditions focus model (Hilton and Slugoski, 1986), that the common sense criterion of causality is that of an ‘abnormal condition’ rather than constant conjunction as instantiated in the ANOVA model of causal attribution (Kelley, 1967, 1973). We address the problem of visually detecting causal events and fitting them together into a coherent story of the action witnessed by the camera. We show that this can be done by reasoning about the motions and collisions of surfaces, using high-level causal constraints derived from psychological studies of infant visual behavior. These constraints are naive forms of basic physical laws governing substantiality, contiguity, momentum, and acceleration. We describe two implementations. One system parses instructional videos, extracting plans of action and key frames suitable for storyboarding. Since learning will play a role in making such systems robust, we introduce a new framework for higher-order hidden Markov models and demonstrate its use in a second system that segments stereo video into actions in near real-time. Rather than attempt accurate low-level vision, both systems use high-level causal analysis to integrate fast but sloppy pixel-based representations over time. The output is suitable for summary, indexing, and automated editing. The modal logic of forcing arises when one considers a model of set theory in the context of all its forcing extensions, interpreting necessity as "in all forcing extensions" and possibility as "in some forcing extension". In this modal language one may easily express sweeping general forcing principles, such as the assertion that every possibly necessary statement is necessarily possible, which is valid for forcing, or the assertion that every possibly necessary statement is true, which is the maximality principle, a forcing axiom independent of but equiconsistent with ZFC (Stavi-V "a "an "anen, Hamkins). Every definable forcing class similarly gives rise to the corresponding forcing modalities, for which one considers extensions only by forcing notions in that class. In previous work, we proved that if ZFC is consistent, then the ZFC-provably valid principles of the class of all forcing are precisely the assertions of the modal theory S4.2. In this article, we prove that the provably valid principles of collapse forcing, Cohen forcing and other classes are in each case exactly S4.3; the provably valid principles of c.c.c. forcing, proper forcing, and others are each contained within S4.3 and do not contain S4.2; the provably valid principles of countably closed forcing, CH-preserving forcing and others are each exactly S4.2; and the provably valid principles of @math -preserving forcing are contained within S4.tBA. All these results arise from general structural connections we have identified between a forcing class and the modal logic of forcing to which it gives rise, including the connection between various control statements, such as buttons, switches and ratchets, and their corresponding forcing validities. These structural connections therefore support a forcing-only analysis of other diverse forcing classes. Ginsberg and Smith [6, 7] propose a new method for reasoning about action, which they term a possible worlds approach (PWA). The PWA is an elegant, simple, and potentially very powerful domain-independent technique that has proven fruitful in other areas of AI [13, 5]. In the domain of reasoning about action, Ginsberg and Smith offer the PWA as a solution to the frame problem (What facts about the world remain true when an action is performed?) and its dual, the ramification problem [3] (What facts about the world must change when an action is performed?). In addition, Ginsberg and Smith offer the PWA as a solution to the qualification problem (When is it reasonable to assume that an action will succeed?), and claim for the PWA computational advantages over other approaches such as situation calculus. Here and in [16] I show that the PWA fails to solve the frame, ramification, and qualification problems, even with additional simplifying restrictions not imposed by Ginsberg and Smith. The cause of the failure seems to be a lack of distinction in the PWA between the state of the world and the description of the state of the world. I introduce a new approach to reasoning about action, called the possible models approach, and show that the possible models approach works as well as the PWA on the examples of [6, 7] but does not suffer from its deficiencies. We introduce a novel generative model for interpretable subgroup analysis for causal inference applications, Causal Rule Sets (CRS). A CRS model uses a small set of short rules to capture a subgroup where the average treatment effect is elevated compared to the entire population. We present a Bayesian framework for learning a causal rule set. The Bayesian framework consists of a prior that favors simpler models and a Bayesian logistic regression that characterizes the relation between outcomes, attributes and subgroup membership. We find maximum a posteriori models using discrete Monte Carlo steps in the joint solution space of rules sets and parameters. We provide theoretically grounded heuristics and bounding strategies to improve search efficiency. Experiments show that the search algorithm can efficiently recover a true underlying subgroup and CRS shows consistently competitive performance compared to other state-of-the-art baseline methods. Discovering causal relationships in large databases of observational data is challenging. The pioneering work in this area was rooted in the theory of Bayesian network (BN) learning, which however, is a NP-complete problem. Hence several constraint-based algorithms have been developed to efficiently discover causations in large databases. These methods usually use the idea of BN learning, directly or indirectly, and are focused on causal relationships with single cause variables. In this paper, we propose an approach to mine causal rules in large databases of binary variables. Our method expands the scope of causality discovery to causal relationships with multiple cause variables, and we utilise partial association tests to exclude noncausal associations, to ensure the high reliability of discovered causal rules. Furthermore an efficient algorithm is designed for the tests in large databases. We assess the method with a set of real-world diagnostic data. The results show that our method can effectively discover interesting causal rules in large databases. Decision rules induced from a data set represent knowledge patterns relating premises and decisions in ‘if … , then …’ statements. Premise is a conjunction of elementary conditions relative to independent variables and decision is a conclusion relative to dependent variables. Given a set of decision rules induced from a data set, it is useful to estimate possible effects on the dependent variables caused by an intervention on some independent variables. The authors introduce a methodology for quantifying the impact of a strategy of intervention based on a decision rule induced from data. While the usual interestingness measures of decision rules are taking into account only characteristics of universe U where they come from, the measures of efficiency of intervention depend also on characteristics of universe U′ where intervention takes place. The authors are considering the intervention on a single independent variable and on a combination of these variables. Our objective is to investigate the implications of the “replacement principle” for the fair allocation of an infinitely divisible commodity among agents with single-peaked preferences. The principle says that when one of the components of the data entering the description of the problem to be solved changes, all of the relevant agents should be affected in the same direction: they all gain or they all lose. We apply it to situations in which the preferences of one of the agents may change, under the name ofwelfare-domination under preference-replacement. We show that there is no selection from the no-envy and Pareto solution satisfying it. Then, we weaken it by limiting its application to situations in which the change is not so disruptive that it turns the economy from one in which there is “too little” of the commodity to one in which there is “too much,” or conversely. We show that there is only one selection from the no-envy and Pareto solution satisfying this property andreplication-invariance. It is the “uniform rule,” a solution that has played a central role in previous analyses of the problem.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Numbers: D51, D63, D70. We propose a novel approach for inferring the individualized causal effects of a treatment (intervention) from observational data. Our approach conceptualizes causal inference as a multitask learning problem; we model a subject's potential outcomes using a deep multitask network with a set of shared layers among the factual and counterfactual outcomes, and a set of outcome-specific layers. The impact of selection bias in the observational data is alleviated via a propensity-dropout regularization scheme, in which the network is thinned for every training example via a dropout probability that depends on the associated propensity score. The network is trained in alternating phases, where in each phase we use the training examples of one of the two potential outcomes (treated and control populations) to update the weights of the shared layers and the respective outcome-specific layers. Experiments conducted on data based on a real-world observational study show that our algorithm outperforms the state-of-the-art. Author(s): Johnson, William Andrew | Advisor(s): Scanlon, Thomas | Abstract: This dissertation is a collection of results in model theory, related in one way or another to fields, NIP theories, and elimination of imaginaries. The most important result is a classification of dp-minimal fields, presented in Chapter 9. We construct in a canonical fashion a non-trivial Hausdorff definable field topology on any unstable dp-minimal field. Usingthis we classify the dp-minimal pure fields and valued fields up to elementary equivalence. Furthermore we prove that every VC-minimal field is real closed or algebraically closed.In Chapter 11, we analyze the theories of existentially closed fields with several valuations and orderings, as studied by van den Dries. We show that these model complete theories are NTP2, and analyze forking, dividing, and burden in these theories. The theory of algebraically closed fields with n independent valuation rings turns out to be an example of such a theory. This provides a new and natural example of an NTP2 theory which is neithersimple nor NIP, nor even a conceptual hybrid of something simple and something NIP.In Chapter 8, we exhibit a bad failure of elimination of imaginaries in a dense o-minimal structure. We produce an exotic interpretable set which cannot be put in definable bijection with a definable set, after naming any amount of parameters. However, we show that these exotic interpretable sets are still amenable to some of the tools of tame topology: they mustadmit nice definable topologies locally homeomorphic to definable sets.Chapter 12 proves the existence of Z nZ-valued definable strong Euler characteristics on pseudofinite fields, which measure the non-standard “size” of definable sets, mod n. The non-trivial result is that these “sizes” are definable in families of definable sets. This could probably be proven e cohomology, but we give a more elementary proof relying heavily on the theory of abelian varieties.We also present simplified and new proofs of several model-theoretic facts, including the definability of irreducibility and Zariski closure in ACF (Chapter 10), and elimination of imaginaries in ACVF (Chapter 6). This latter fact was originally proven by Haskell, Hrushovski, and Macpherson. We give a proof that is drastically simpler, inspired by Poizat’s proofs of elimination of imaginaries in ACF and DCF.