The contributions of this work are as follows: the formulation of a precise mathematical model of a dynamic multi-agent domain based on the notion of a transition diagram; the development of the multi-agent action languages mA+ and mAL based upon this model, as well as preliminary investigations of their properties and implementations via logic programming under the answer set semantics; precise formulations of the temporal projection, and planning problems within a multi-agent context; and an investigation of the application of the proposed approach to the representation of, and reasoning about, scenarios involving the modalities of knowledge and belief.
However, while ASP is effective on deterministic problem domains, it is not suitable for applications involving quantitative uncertainty, for example, those that require probabilistic reasoning. Furthermore, it is hard to utilize information that can be statistically induced from data with ASP problem modeling.
This dissertation presents the language LP^MLN, which is a probabilistic extension of the stable model semantics with the concept of weighted rules, inspired by Markov Logic. An LP^MLN program defines a probability distribution over "soft" stable models, which may not satisfy all rules, but the more rules with the bigger weights they satisfy, the bigger their probabilities. LP^MLN takes advantage of both ASP and Markov Logic in a single framework, allowing representation of problems that require both logical and probabilistic reasoning in an intuitive and elaboration tolerant way.
This dissertation establishes formal relations between LP^MLN and several other formalisms, discusses inference and weight learning algorithms under LP^MLN, and presents systems implementing the algorithms. LP^MLN systems can be used to compute other languages translatable into LP^MLN.
The advantage of LP^MLN for probabilistic reasoning is illustrated by a probabilistic extension of the action language BC+, called pBC+, defined as a high-level notation of LP^MLN for describing transition systems. Various probabilistic reasoning about transition systems, especially probabilistic diagnosis, can be modeled in pBC+ and computed using LP^MLN systems. pBC+ is further extended with the notion of utility, through a decision-theoretic extension of LP^MLN, and related with Markov Decision Process (MDP) in terms of policy optimization problems. pBC+ can be used to represent (PO)MDP in a succinct and elaboration tolerant way, which enables planning with (PO)MDP algorithms in action domains whose description requires rich KR constructs, such as recursive definitions and indirect effects of actions.
To address these domains, there have been several proposals to achieve efficiency through loose integrations with efficient declarative solvers such as constraint solvers or satisfiability modulo theories solvers. While these approaches successfully avoid substantial grounding, due to the loose integration, they are not suitable for performing defeasible reasoning on functions. As a result, this expressive reasoning on functions must either be performed using predicates to simulate the functions or in a way that is not elaboration tolerant. Neither compromise is reasonable; the former suffers from the grounding bottleneck when domains are large as is often the case in real-world domains while the latter necessitates encodings to be non-trivially modified for elaborations.
This dissertation presents a novel framework called Answer Set Programming Modulo Theories (ASPMT) that is a tight integration of the stable model semantics and satisfiability modulo theories. This framework both supports defeasible reasoning about functions and alleviates the grounding bottleneck. Combining the strengths of Answer Set Programming and satisfiability modulo theories enables efficient continuous reasoning while still supporting rich reasoning features such as reasoning about defaults and reasoning in domains with incomplete knowledge. This framework is realized in two prototype implementations called MVSM and ASPMT2SMT, and the latter was recently incorporated into a non-monotonic spatial reasoning system. To define the semantics of this framework, we extend the first-order stable model semantics by Ferraris, Lee and Lifschitz to allow "intensional functions" and provide analyses of the theoretical properties of this new formalism and on the relationships between this and existing approaches.
Logic Programs under the answer set semantics and Markov Logic Network (LPMLN) is a recent extension of answer set programs to overcome the limitation of the deterministic nature of ASP by adopting the log-linear weight scheme of Markov Logic. This thesis investigates the relationships between LPMLN and two other extensions of ASP: weak constraints to express a quantitative preference among answer sets, and P-log to incorporate probabilistic uncertainty. The studied relationships show how different extensions of answer set programs are related to each other, and how they are related to formalisms in Statistical Relational Learning, such as Problog and MLN, which have shown to be closely related to LPMLN. The studied relationships compare the properties of the involved languages and provide ways to compute one language using an implementation of another language.
This thesis first presents a translation of LPMLN into programs with weak constraints. The translation allows for computing the most probable stable models (i.e., MAP estimates) or probability distribution in LPMLN programs using standard ASP solvers so that the well-developed techniques in ASP can be utilized. This result can be extended to other formalisms, such as Markov Logic, ProbLog, and Pearl’s Causal Models, that are shown to be translatable into LPMLN.
This thesis also presents a translation of P-log into LPMLN. The translation tells how probabilistic nonmonotonicity (the ability of the reasoner to change his probabilistic model as a result of new information) of P-log can be represented in LPMLN, which yields a way to compute P-log using standard ASP solvers or MLN solvers.
The majority of trust research has focused on the benefits trust can have for individual actors, institutions, and organizations. This “optimistic bias” is particularly evident in work focused on institutional trust, where concepts such as procedural justice, shared values, and moral responsibility have gained prominence. But trust in institutions may not be exclusively good. We reveal implications for the “dark side” of institutional trust by reviewing relevant theories and empirical research that can contribute to a more holistic understanding. We frame our discussion by suggesting there may be a “Goldilocks principle” of institutional trust, where trust that is too low (typically the focus) or too high (not usually considered by trust researchers) may be problematic. The chapter focuses on the issue of too-high trust and processes through which such too-high trust might emerge. Specifically, excessive trust might result from external, internal, and intersecting external-internal processes. External processes refer to the actions institutions take that affect public trust, while internal processes refer to intrapersonal factors affecting a trustor’s level of trust. We describe how the beneficial psychological and behavioral outcomes of trust can be mitigated or circumvented through these processes and highlight the implications of a “darkest” side of trust when they intersect. We draw upon research on organizations and legal, governmental, and political systems to demonstrate the dark side of trust in different contexts. The conclusion outlines directions for future research and encourages researchers to consider the ethical nuances of studying how to increase institutional trust.