Artificial Intelligence最新文献

Many autonomous systems are safety-critical, making it essential to have a closed-loop control system that satisfies constraints arising from underlying physical limitations and safety aspects in a robust manner. However, this is often challenging to achieve for real-world systems. For example, autonomous ships at sea have nonlinear and uncertain dynamics and are subject to numerous time-varying environmental disturbances such as waves, currents, and wind. There is increasing interest in using machine learning-based approaches to adapt these systems to more complex scenarios, but there are few standard frameworks that guarantee the safety and stability of such systems. Recently, predictive safety filters (PSF) have emerged as a promising method to ensure constraint satisfaction in learning-based control, bypassing the need for explicit constraint handling in the learning algorithms themselves. The safety filter approach leads to a modular separation of the problem, allowing the use of arbitrary control policies in a task-agnostic way. The filter takes in a potentially unsafe control action from the main controller and solves an optimization problem to compute a minimal perturbation of the proposed action that adheres to both physical and safety constraints. In this work, we combine reinforcement learning (RL) with predictive safety filtering in the context of marine navigation and control. The RL agent is trained on path-following and safety adherence across a wide range of randomly generated environments, while the predictive safety filter continuously monitors the agents' proposed control actions and modifies them if necessary. The combined PSF/RL scheme is implemented on a simulated model of Cybership II, a miniature replica of a typical supply ship. Safety performance and learning rate are evaluated and compared with those of a standard, non-PSF, RL agent. It is demonstrated that the predictive safety filter is able to keep the vessel safe, while not prohibiting the learning rate and performance of the RL agent.

Quantified conflict-driven clause learning (QCDCL) is one of the main approaches for solving quantified Boolean formulas (QBF). We formalise and investigate several versions of QCDCL that include cube learning and/or pure-literal elimination, and formally compare the resulting solving variants via proof complexity techniques. Our results show that almost all of the QCDCL variants are exponentially incomparable with respect to proof size (and hence solver running time), pointing towards different orthogonal ways how to practically implement QCDCL.

It has been increasingly recognized that identifying roles of formulas of a knowledge base in the inconsistency of that base can help us better look inside the inconsistency. However, there are few approaches to identifying such roles of formulas from a perspective of models in some paraconsistent logic, one of typical tools used to characterize inconsistency in semantics. In this paper, we characterize the role of each formula in the inconsistency arising in a knowledge base from informational as well as causal aspects in the framework of Priest's minimally inconsistent logic of paradox. At first, we identify the causal responsibility of a formula for the inconsistency based on the counterfactual dependence of the inconsistency on the formula under some contingency in semantics. Then we incorporate the change on semantic information in the framework of causal responsibility to develop the informational responsibility of a formula for the inconsistency to capture the contribution made by the formula for the inconsistent information. This incorporation makes the informational responsibility interpretable from the point of view of causality, and capable of catching the role of a formula in inconsistent information concisely. In addition, we propose notions of naive and quasi naive responsibilities as two auxiliaries to describe special relations between inconsistency and formulas in semantic sense. Some intuitive and interesting properties of the two kinds of responsibilities are also discussed.

Iterated belief revision requires information about the current beliefs. This information is represented by mathematical structures called doxastic states. Most literature concentrates on how to revise a doxastic state and neglects that it may exponentially grow. This problem is studied for the most common ways of storing a doxastic state. All four of them are able to store every doxastic state, but some do it in less space than others. In particular, the explicit representation (an enumeration of the current beliefs) is the more wasteful on space. The level representation (a sequence of propositional formulae) and the natural representation (a history of natural revisions) are more succinct than it. The lexicographic representation (a history of lexicographic revision) is even more succinct than them.

Real-world data are often inconsistent. Although a substantial amount of research has been done on measuring inconsistency, this research concentrated on knowledge bases formalized in propositional logic. Recently, inconsistency measures have been introduced for relational databases. However, nowadays, real-world information is always more frequently represented by graph-based structures which offer a more intuitive conceptualization than relational ones. In this paper, we explore inconsistency measures for graph databases with regular path constraints, a class of integrity constraints based on a well-known navigational language for graph data. In this context, we define several inconsistency measures dealing with specific elements contributing to inconsistency in graph databases. We also define some rationality postulates that are desirable properties for an inconsistency measure for graph databases. We analyze the compliance of each measure with each postulate and find various degrees of satisfaction; in fact, one of the measures satisfies all the postulates. Finally, we investigate the data and combined complexity of the calculation of all the measures as well as the complexity of deciding whether a measure is lower than, equal to, or greater than a given threshold. It turns out that for a majority of the measures these problems are tractable, while for the other different levels of intractability are exhibited.

Autonomous systems are increasingly used in highly variable and uncertain environments giving rise to the pressing need to consider risk in both the synthesis and verification of policies for these systems. This paper first develops a sample-based method to upper bound the risk measure evaluation of a random variable whose distribution is unknown. These bounds permit us to generate high-confidence verification statements for a large class of robotic systems in a sample-efficient manner. Second, we develop a sample-based method to determine solutions to non-convex optimization problems that outperform a large fraction of the decision space of possible solutions. Both sample-based approaches then permit us to rapidly synthesize risk-aware policies that are guaranteed to achieve a minimum level of system performance. To showcase our approach in simulation, we verify a cooperative multi-agent system and develop a risk-aware controller that outperforms the system's baseline controller. Our approach can be extended to account for any g-entropic risk measure.

In peer mechanisms, the competitors for a prize also determine who wins. Each competitor may be asked to rank, grade, or nominate peers for the prize. Since the prize can be valuable, such as financial aid, course grades, or an award at a conference, competitors may be tempted to manipulate the mechanism. We survey approaches to prevent or discourage the manipulation of peer mechanisms. We conclude our survey by identifying several important research challenges.

Due to the emergence of AI systems that interact with the physical environment, there is an increased interest in incorporating physical reasoning capabilities into those AI systems. But is it enough to only have physical reasoning capabilities to operate in a real physical environment? In the real world, we constantly face novel situations we have not encountered before. As humans, we are competent at successfully adapting to those situations. Similarly, an agent needs to have the ability to function under the impact of novelties in order to properly operate in an open-world physical environment. To facilitate the development of such AI systems, we propose a new benchmark, NovPhy, that requires an agent to reason about physical scenarios in the presence of novelties and take actions accordingly. The benchmark consists of tasks that require agents to detect and adapt to novelties in physical scenarios. To create tasks in the benchmark, we develop eight novelties representing a diverse novelty space and apply them to five commonly encountered scenarios in a physical environment, related to applying forces and motions such as rolling, falling, and sliding of objects. According to our benchmark design, we evaluate two capabilities of an agent: the performance on a novelty when it is applied to different physical scenarios and the performance on a physical scenario when different novelties are applied to it. We conduct a thorough evaluation with human players, learning agents, and heuristic agents. Our evaluation shows that humans' performance is far beyond the agents' performance. Some agents, even with good normal task performance, perform significantly worse when there is a novelty, and the agents that can adapt to novelties typically adapt slower than humans. We promote the development of intelligent agents capable of performing at the human level or above when operating in open-world physical environments. benchmark website: https://github.com/phy-q/novphy

We study a participatory budgeting problem, where a set of strategic agents wish to split a divisible budget among different projects, by aggregating their proposals on a single division. Unfortunately, the straightforward rule that divides the budget proportionally is susceptible to manipulation. Recently, a class of truthful mechanisms has been proposed, namely the moving phantom mechanisms. One such mechanism satisfies the proportionality property, in the sense that in the extreme case where all agents prefer a single project to receive the whole amount, the budget is assigned proportionally.

While proportionality is a naturally desired property, it is defined over a limited type of preference profiles. To address this, we expand the notion of proportionality, by proposing a quantitative framework that evaluates a budget aggregation mechanism according to its worst-case distance from the proportional allocation. Crucially, this is defined for every preference profile. We study this measure on the class of moving phantom mechanisms, and we provide approximation guarantees. For two projects, we show that the Uniform Phantom mechanism is optimal among all truthful mechanisms. For three projects, we propose a new, proportional mechanism that is virtually optimal among all moving phantom mechanisms. Finally, we provide impossibility results regarding the approximability of moving phantom mechanisms.

This paper presents a formal model of dialectical argument strength in terms of the number of ways in which an argument can be successfully attacked in expansions of an abstract argumentation framework. First a model is proposed that is abstract but designed to avoid overly limiting assumptions on instantiations or dialogue contexts. It is then shown that most principles for argument strength proposed in the literature fail to hold for the proposed notions of dialectical strength, which clarifies the rational foundations of these principles and highlights the importance of distinguishing between kinds of argument strength, in particular logical, dialectical and rhetorical argument strength. The abstract model is then instantiated with ASPIC⁺ to test the claim that it does not make overly limiting assumptions on the structure of arguments and the nature of their relations.