The Weak Completion Semantics is a novel cognitive theory which has been successfully applied -- among others -- to the suppression task, the selection task and syllogistic reasoning. It is based on logic programming with skeptical abduction. Each weakly completed program admits a least model under the three-valued Lukasiewicz logic which can be computed as the least fixed point of an appropriate semantic operator. The operator can be represented by a three-layer feed-forward network using the Core method. Its least fixed point is the unique stable state of a recursive network which is obtained from the three-layer feed-forward core by mapping the activation of the output layer back to the input layer. The recursive network is embedded into a novel network to compute skeptical abduction. This extended abstract outlines a fully connectionist realization of the Weak Completion Semantics.

The weak completion semantics is an integrated and computational cognitive theory which is based on normal logic programs,three-valued Lukasiewicz logic, weak completion, and skeptical abduction. It has been successfully applied – among others – to the suppression task, the selection task, and to human syllogistic reasoning. In order to solve ethical decision problems like – for example – trolley problems, we need to extend the weak completion semantics to deal with actions and causality. To this end we consider normal logic programs and a set E of equations as in the fluent calculus. We formally show that normal logic programs with equality admit a least E-model under the weak completion semantics and that this E-model can be computed as the least fixed point of an associated semantic operator. We show that the operator is not continuous in general, but is continuous if the logic program is a propositional, a finite-ground, or a finite datalog program and the Herbrand E-universe is finite. Finally, we show that the weak completion semantics with equality can solve a variety of ethical decision problems like the bystander case, the footbridge case, and the loop case by computing the least E-model and reasoning with respect to this E-model. The reasoning process involves counterfactuals which is necessary to model the different ethical dilemmas.

The Weak Completion Semantics is a novel cognitive theory which has been successfully applied to the suppression task, the selection task, syllogistic reasoning, the belief bias effect, spatial reasoning as well as reasoning with conditionals. It is based on logic programming with skeptical abduction. Each program admits a least model under the three-valued Lukasiewicz logic, which can be computed as the least fixed point of an appropriate semantic operator. The semantic operator can be represented by a three-layer feed-forward network using the core method. Its least fixed point is the unique stable state of a recursive network which is obtained from the three-layer feed-forward core by mapping the activation of the output layer back to the input layer. The recursive network is embedded into a novel network to compute skeptical abduction. This paper presents a fully connectionist realization of the Weak Completion Semantics.

Abstract The belief bias effect is a phenomenon which occurs when we think that we judge an argument based on our reasoning, but are actually influenced by our beliefs and prior knowledge. Evans, Barston and Pollard carried out a psychological syllogistic reasoning task to prove this effect. Participants were asked whether they would accept or reject a given syllogism. We discuss one specific case which is commonly assumed to be believable but which is actually not logically valid. By introducing abnormalities, abduction and background knowledge, we adequately model this case under the weak completion semantics. Our formalization reveals new questions about possible extensions in abductive reasoning. For instance, observations and their explanations might include some relevant prior abductive contextual information concerning some side-effect or leading to a contestable or refutable side-effect. A weaker notion indicates the support of some relevant consequences by a prior abductive context. Yet another definition describes jointly supported relevant consequences, which captures the idea of two observations containing mutually supportive side-effects. Though motivated with and exemplified by the running psychology application, the various new general abductive context definitions are introduced here and given a declarative semantics for the first time, and have a much wider scope of application. Inspection points, a concept introduced by Pereira and Pinto, allows us to express these definitions syntactically and intertwine them into an operational semantics.

We present a heuristic search algorithm for solving first-order Markov Decision Processes (FOMDPs). Our approach combines first-order state abstraction that avoids evaluating states individually, and heuristic search that avoids evaluating all states. Firstly, in contrast to existing systems, which start with propositionalizing the FOMDP and then perform state abstraction on its propositionalized version we apply state abstraction directly on the FOMDP avoiding propositionalization. This kind of abstraction is referred to as first-order state abstraction. Secondly, guided by an admissible heuristic, the search is restricted to those states that are reachable from the initial state. We demonstrate the usefulness of the above techniques for solving FOMDPs with a system, referred to as FluCaP (formerly, FCPlanner), that entered the probabilistic track of the 2004 International Planning Competition (IPC'2004) and demonstrated an advantage over other planners on the problems represented in first-order terms.

Recently, three approaches to deductive planning were developed which solve the technical frame problem without the need to state frame axioms explicitly. These approaches are based on the linear connection method, an equational Horn logic, and linear logic. At first glance these approaches seem to be very different. In the linear connection method a syntactical condition—each literal is connected at most once—is imposed on proofs. In the equational logic approach situations and plans are represented as terms and SLDE-resolution is applied as an inference rule. The linear logic approach is a Gentzen-style proof system without weakening and contraction rules. On second glance, however, and as a consequence of the results rigorously proved in this paper, it will turn out that the three approaches are equivalent. They are based on the very same idea that facts about a situation are taken as resources which can be consumed and produced.

Conditional equational theories can be built into logic programming using a generalized resolution rule which calls a universal unification procedure. Such unification procedures are often defined by sound and strongly complete sets of inference rules. In other words, to resolve upon two atoms requires to show—by means of the inference rules—that the corresponding arguments of the atoms are equal under a given equational theory. In this sense, derivations with respect to resolution and the inference rules are controlled by a fixed computation rule. However, since the unification problem is undecidable for many classes of equational theories, this fixed computation rule has several drawbacks. We show that refutations with respect to resolution and sound and strongly complete sets of inference rules for conditional equational theories are independent of a computation rule. Hence, resolution and equation solving can be performed on the same level.