Halpern and Pearl introduced a definition of actual causality; Eiter and Lukasiewicz showed that computing whether X = x is a cause of Y = y is NP-complete in binary models (where all variables can take on only two values) and Σ^P_2 -complete in general models. In the final version of their paper, Halpern and Pearl slightly modified the definition of actual cause, in order to deal with problems pointed out by Hopkins and Pearl. As we show, this modification has a nontrivial impact on the complexity of computing whether {X} = {x} is a cause of Y = y. To characterize the complexity, a new family D_k^P , k = 1, 2, 3, . . ., of complexity classes is introduced, which generalises the class DP introduced by Papadimitriou and Yannakakis (DP is just D_1^P). We show that the complexity of computing causality under the updated definition is D_2^P -complete. Chockler and Halpern extended the definition of causality by introducing notions of responsibility and blame, and characterized the complexity of determining the degree of responsibility and blame using the original definition of causality. Here, we completely characterize the complexity using the updated definition of causality. In contrast to the results on causality, we show that moving to the updated definition does not result in a difference in the complexity of computing responsibility and blame.

CPS, that consist of a cyber part – a computing system – and a physical part – the system in the physical environment – as well as the respective interfaces between those parts, are omnipresent in our daily lives. The application in the physical environment drives the overall requirements that must be respected when designing the computing system. Here, reliability is a core aspect where some of the most pressing design challenges are: monitoring failures throughout the computing system, determining the impact of failures on the application constraints, and ensuring correctness of the computing system with respect to application-driven requirements rooted in the physical environment. This paper provides an overview of techniques discussed in the special session to tackle these challenges throughout the stack of layers of the computing system while tightly coupling the design methodology to the physical requirements.

Halpern and Pearl introduced a definition of actual causality; Eiter and Lukasiewicz showed that computing whether X = x is a cause of Y = y is NP-complete in binary models (where all variables can take on only two values) and \Sigma^P_2-complete in general models. In the final version of their paper, Halpern and Pearl slightly modified the definition of actual cause, in order to deal with problems pointed by Hopkins and Pearl. As we show, this modification has a nontrivial impact on the complexity of computing actual cause. To characterize the complexity, a new family D_k^P , k = 1,2,3,..., of complexity classes is introduced, which generalizes the class D^P introduced by Papadimitriou and Yannakakis (DP is just D^P_1). We show that the complexity of computing causality under the updated definition is D^P_2 -complete. Chockler and Halpern extended the definition of causality by introducing notions of responsibility and blame. The complexity of determining the degree of responsibility and blame using the original definition of causality was completely characterized. Again, we show that changing the definition of causality affects the complexity, and completely characterize it using the updated definition.

In this video we present Redelmeier's algorithm for counting polyominoes, its generalization for counting animals on any lattice, and our implementation of a parallel version of it.