7319496
Statistical Foundations for Default Reasoning
We describe a new approach to default, reasoning, based on a principle on indifference among possible worlds. We interpret default rules as extreme statistical statements, thus obtaining a knowledge base KB comprised of statistical and first-order statements. We then assign equal probability to all worlds consistent with KB in order to assign a degree of belief to a statement Φ. The degree of belief can be used to decide whether to defeasibly conclude Φ. Various natural patterns of reasoning, such as a preference for more specific defaults, indifference to irrelevant information, and the ability to combine independent pieces of evidence, turn out to follow naturally from this technique. Furthermore, our approach is not restricted to default reasoning; it supports a spectrum of reasoning, from quantitative to qualitative. It is also related to other systems for default reasoning. In particular, we show that the work of [Goldszmidt et al., 1990], which applies maximum entropy ideas to --semantics, can be embedded in our framework.
15233558
A new look at fault tolerant network routing
Consider a communication network G in which a limited number of link and/or node faults F might occur. A routing &rgr; for the network (a fixed path between each pair of nodes) must be chosen without any knowledge of which components might become faulty. Choosing a good routing corresponds to bounding the diameter of the surviving route graph R(G,&rgr;)/F, where two nonfaulty nodes are joined by an edge if there are no faults on the route between them. We prove a number of results concerning the diameter of surviving route graphs. We show that if &rgr; is a minimal length routing, then the diameter of R(G,&rgr;)/F can be on the order of the number of nodes of G, even if F consists of only a single node. However, if G is the n-dimensional cube, the diameter of R(G,&rgr;)/F≤3 for any minimal length routing &rgr; and any set of faults F with |F|<n. We also show that if F consists only of edges and does not disconnect G, then the diameter of R(G,&rgr;)/F is ≤ 3|F|+1, while if F consists only of nodes and does not disconnect G, then the diameter of R(G,&rgr;)/F is ≤ the sum of the degrees of the nodes in F, where in both cases &rgr; is an arbitrary minimal length routing. We conclude with one of the most important contributions of this paper: a list of interesting and apparently difficult open problems.
215949262
Knowledge, probability, and adversaries
What should it mean for an agent to know or believe an assertion is true with probability 9.99? Different papers [2, 6, 15] give different answers, choosing to use quite different probability space...
47316226
Equations Between Regular Terms and an Application to Process Logic
Regular terms with the Kleene operations $ \cup $, ; and $ * $ can be thought of as operators on languages, generating other languages. An equation $\tau _1 = \tau _2 $ between two such terms is said to be satisfiable just in case languages exist which make this equation true. We show that the satisfiability problem even for $ * $-free regular terms is undecidable. Similar techniques are used to show that a very natural extension of the Process Logic of Harel, Kozen and Parikh is undecidable.
152014
Causality, Responsibility, and Blame: A Structural-Model Approach
This talk provides an overview of work that I have done with Hana Chockler, Orna Kupferman, and Judea Pearl (H. Chockler and J. Y. Halpern, 2004), (H. Chockler, et al., 2003), (J. Y. Halpern and J. Pearl, 2005), on defining notions such as causality, explanation, responsibility, and blame. I first review the Halpern-Pearl definition of causality, what it means that A is a cause of B, and show how it handles well some standard problems of causality. This definition of causality (like most in the literature) views causality as an all-or-nothing concept. Either A is a cause of B or it is not. I show how it can be extended to take into account the degree of responsibility of A for B. For example, if someone wins an election 11-0, each person is less responsible for his victory than if he had won 6-5. Finally, I show how this notion of degree of responsibility can be used to provide insight into model checking notions such as coverage
14995360
A model-theoretic analysis of knowledge
A general semantic model of knowledge is introduced, to allow reasoning about statements such as «He knows that I know whether or not she knows whether or not it is raining». This approach more naturally models a state of knowledge than previous proposals (including Kripke structures). Using this notion of model, a model theory for knowledge is developed. This theory enables one to interpret the notion of a «finite amount of information»
23268703
A knowledge-theoretic analysis of uniform distributed coordination and failure detectors
It is shown that, in a precise sense, if there is no bound on the number of faulty processes in a system with unreliable but fair communication, Uniform Distributed Coordination (UDC) can be attained if and only if a system has perfect failure detectors. This result is generalized to the case where there is a bound t on the number of faulty processes. It is shown that a certain type of generalized failure detector is necessary and sufficient for achieving UDC in a context with at most t faulty processes. Reasoning about processes’ knowledge as to which other processes are faulty plays a key role in the analysis.
1225089
Defining Explanation in Probabilistic Systems
As probabilistic systems gain popularity and are coming into wider use, the need for a mechanism that explains the system's findings and recommendations becomes more critical. The system will also need a mechanism for ordering competing explanations. We examine two representative approaches to explanation in the literature-- one due to Gardenfors and one due to Pearl--and show that both suffer from significant problems. We propose an approach to defining a notion of "better explanation" that combines some of the features of both together with more recent work by Pearl and others on causality.
35307334
Performing Work Efficiently in the Presence of Faults
We consider a system of t synchronous processes that communicate only by sending messages to one another, and together the processes must perform n independent units of work. Processes may fail by crashing; we want to guarantee that in every execution of the protocol in which at least one process survives, all n units of work will be performed. We consider three parameters: the number of messages sent, the total number of units of work performed (including multiplicities), and time. We present three protocols for solving the problem. All three are work optimal, doing O(n+t) work. The first has moderate costs in the remaining two parameters, sends $O(t\sqrt{t})$ messages, and takes O(n+t) time. This protocol can be easily modified to run in any completely asynchronous system equipped with a failure detection mechanism. The second sends only O(t log t) messages, but its running time is large (O(t2(n+t) 2n+t)). The third is essentially time optimal in the (usual) case in which there are no failures, and its time complexity degrades gracefully as the number of failures increases.
10886930
Belief Revision with Unreliable Observations
Research in belief revision has been dominated by work that lies firmly within the classic AGM paradigm, characterized by a well-known set of postulates governing the behavior of "rational" revision functions. A postulate that is rarely criticized is the success postulate: the result of revising by an observed proposition ? results in belief in ?. This postulate, however, is often undesirable in settings where an agent's observations may be imprecise or noisy. We propose a semantics that captures a new ontology for studying revision functions, which can handle noisy observations in a natural way while retaining the classical AGM model as a special case. We present a characterization theorem for our semantics, and describe a number of natural special cases that allow ease of specification and reasoning with revision functions. In particular, by making the Markov assumption, we can easily specify and reason about revision.
7572747
Set-theoretic completeness for epistemic and conditional logic
The standard approach to logic in the literature in philosophy and mathematics, which has also been adopted in computer science, is to define a language (the syntax), an appropriate class of models together with an interpretation of formulas in the language (the semantics), a collection of axioms and rules of inference characterizing reasoning (the proof theory), and then relate the proof theory to the semantics via soundness and completeness results. Here we consider an approach that is more common in the economics literature, which works purely at the semantic, set-theoretic level. We provide set-theoretic completeness results for a number of epistemic and conditional logics, and contrast the expressive power of the syntactic and set-theoretic approaches.