Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Detecting and repairing anomalous evolutions in noisy environments

Logic programming formalization and complexity results

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In systems where agents are required to interact with a partially known and dynamic world, sensors can be used to obtain knowledge about the environment. However, sensors may be unreliable, that is, they may deliver wrong information (due, e.g., to hardware or software malfunctioning) and, consequently, they may cause agents to take wrong decisions, which is a scenario that should be avoided. The paper considers the problem of reasoning in noisy environments in a setting where no (either certain or probabilistic) data is available in advance about the reliability of sensors. Therefore, assuming that each agent is equipped with a background theory encoding its general knowledge about the world, a concept of detecting an anomaly perceived in sensor data and the related concept of agent recovering to a coherent status of information are defined. In this context, the complexities of various anomaly detection and anomaly recovery problems are studied. Finally, rewriting algorithms are proposed that transform recovery problems into equivalent inference problems under answer set semantics, thereby making them effectively realizable on top of available answer set solvers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: prtial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symb. Log. 50(2), 510–530 (1985)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Alchourrón, C.E., Makinson, D.: The logic of theory change: contraction functions and their associated revision functions. Theoria 48, 14–37 (1982)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Alchourrón, C.E., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: safe contraction. Stud. Log. 44, 405–422 (1985)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Arenas, M., Bertossi, L.E., Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases. In: Proc. of the 18th ACM SIGACT SIGMOD SIGART Symp. on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pp. 68–79 (1999)

  5. Bacchus, F., Halpern, J.Y., Levesque, H.J.: Reasoning about noisy sensors and effectors in the situation calculus. Artif. Intell. 111(1–2), 171–208 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Balduccini, M., Gelfond, M.: Diagnostic reasoning with a-prolog. J. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 3(4–5), 425–461 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Baral, C., Kreinovich, V., Trejo, R.: Computational complexity of planning and approximate planning in the presence of incompleteness. Artif. Intell. 122(1–2), 241–267 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Baral, C., McIlraith, S.A., Son, T.C.: Formulating diagnostic problem solving using an action language with narratives and sensing. In: Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. of Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pp. 311–322 (2000)

  9. Baral, C., Tran, N., Tuan, L.C.: Reasoning about actions in a probabilistic setting. In: Proc. of the 18th Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and 14th Conf. on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI/IAAI), pp. 507–512 (2002)

  10. Baral, C., Son, T.C.: Approximate reasoning about actions in presence of sensing and incomplete information. In: Proc. of the 1997 International Logic Programming Symposium (ILPS), pp. 387–401 (1997)

  11. Bertossi, L., Bravo, L., Franconi, E., Lopatenko, A.: The complexity and approximation of fixing numerical attributes in databases under integrity constraints. Inf. Syst. 33(4–5), 407–434 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bertossi, L., Chomicki, J., Cortes, A., Gutierrez, C.: Consistent answers from integrated data sources. In: Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on Flexible Query Answering Systems (FQAS), pp. 71–85 (2002)

  13. Bohannon, P., Flaster, M., Fan, W., Rastogi, R.: A cost-based model and effective heuristic for repairing constraints by value modification. In: Proc. of the ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Databooktitle (SIGMOD), pp. 143–154 (2005)

  14. Boutilier, C., Dean, R., Hanks. S.: Planning under uncertainty: structural assumptions and computational leverage. JAIR 11, 1–94 (1999)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Boutilier, C., Reiter, R., Price. B.: Symbolic dynamic programming for first-order MDPs. In: Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 690–700 (2001)

  16. Bravo, L., Bertossi, L.: Logic programming for consistently querying data integration systems. In: Proc. of the 18th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 10–15 (2003)

  17. Buccafurri, F., Leone, N., Rullo, P.: Enhancing disjunctive datalog by constraints. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 12(5), 845–860 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Calì, A., Lembo, D., Rosati, R.: Query rewriting and answering under constraints in data integration systems. In: Proc. of the 18th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 16–21 (2003)

  19. Chen, Z., Toda, S.: The complexity of selecting maximal solutions. Inf. Comput. 119(2), 231–239 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Damasio, C., Pereira, L.M., Schroeder, M.: Revise: Logic programming and diagnosis. In: Proc. of the 4th International Conference on Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning (LPNMR), pp. 354–363. Dagstuhl, Germany (1997)

  21. Dantsin, E., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Voronkov, A.: Complexity and expressive power of logic programming. ACM Comput. Surv. 33(3), 374–425 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dix, J., Either, T., Fink, M., Polleres, A., Zhang, Y.: Monitoring agents using declarative planning. Fundam. Inform. 57(2–4), 345–370 (2003)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Dix, J., Kraus, S., Subrahmanian, V.S.: Heterogenous temporal probabilistic agents. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 7(1), 151–198 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Dix, J., Nanni, M., Subrahmanian, V.S.: Probabilistic agent reasoning. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 2(1), 201–245 (2000)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Eiter, T., Erdem, E., Faber, W.: Plan reversals for recovery in execution monitoring. In: Proc. of the 10th Int. Work. on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR), pp. 147–154 (2004)

  26. Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G.: The diagnosis frontend of the dlv system. AI Commun. 12(1–2), 99–111 (1999)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Polleres, A.: A logic programming approach to knowledge-state planning: semantics and complexity. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 5(2), 206–263 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Eiter, T., Fink, M., Greco, G., Lembo., D.: Repair localization for query answering from inconsistent databases. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 33(2), (2008)

  29. Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: On the computational cost of disjunctive logic programming: propositional case. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 15(3–4): 289-323 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Eiter. T., Gottlob. G.: The complexity of logic-based abduction. J. ACM 42(1), 3–42 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Eiter, T., Mascardi, V., Subrahmanian, V.: Error-tolerant agents. In: Kakas, A.C., Sadri, F. (eds.) Computational Logic. Logic Programming and Beyond, pp. 586–625 (2002)

  32. Faber, W., Greco, G., Leone, N.: Magic sets and their application to data integration. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 73(4), 584–609 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Fichtner, M., Großmann, A., Thielscher, M.: Intelligent execution monitoring in dynamic environments. Fundam. Inform. 57(2–4), 371–392 (2003)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Franconi, E., Palma, A.L., Leone, N., Perri, S., Scarcello, S.: Census data repair: a challenging application of disjunctive logic programming. In: Proc. of the 8th Int. Conf. on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning (LPAR), pp. 561–578 (2001)

  35. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz. V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Gener. Comput. 9(3–4): 365–386 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz. V.: Representing actions and change by logic programming. J. Log. Program. 17(2–4), 301–323 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Genesereth, M.R.: The use of design descriptions in automated diagnosis. Artif. Intell. 24, 411–436 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Giacomo, G.D., Soutchanski, M., Reiter, R.: Execution monitoring of high-level robot programs. In: Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pp. 453–464 (1998)

  39. Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N., Turner, H.: Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artif. Intell. 153, 49–104 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Greco, G., Greco, S., Zumpano, E.: A logical framework for querying and repairing inconsistent databases. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 15(6), 1389–1408 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Greco, G., Lembo, D.: Data integration with preferences among sources. In: Proc. of the 23rd International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER), pp. 231–244 (2004)

  42. Halpern, J.Y., Tuttle, M.R.: Knowledge, probability, and adversaries. J. ACM 40(4), 917–962 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Hansson, S.O.: A survey of non-prioritized belief revision. Erkenntnis 50, 413–427 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Iocchi, L., Lukasiewicz, T., Nardi, D., Rosati, R.: Reasoning about actions with sensing under qualitative and probabilistic uncertainty. In: Proc. of the 6th European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pp. 818–822 (2004)

  45. Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I., Simons, P., You, J.H.: Unfolding partiality and disjunctions in stable model semantics. In: Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pp. 411–419 (2000)

  46. Johnson, D.S.: Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume A: Algorithms and Complexity, chap. A Catalog of Complexity Classes, pp. 67–161. Elsevier and The MIT Press (co-publishers) (1990)

  47. Kakas, A.C., Mancarella, P.: Database updates through abduction. In: Proc of. the 16th Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), pp. 650–661. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia (1990)

  48. de Kleer, J., Williams, B.C.: Diagnosing multiple faults. Artif. Intell. 32(1), 97–130 (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  49. de Kleer, J., Williams, B.C.: Diagnosis with Behavioral Modes, pp. 124–130 (1992)

  50. Krentel, M.W.: The complexity of optimization problems. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 36(3), 490–509 (1988)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., Scarcello, F.: The dlv system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 7(3), 499–562 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  52. Lin, F., You, J.H.: Abduction in logic programming: a new definition and an abductive procedure based on rewriting. Artif. Intell. 140(1–2), 175–205 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Lin, J., Mendelzon, A.O.: Merging databases under constraints. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 7(1), 55–76 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Littman, M.L., Goldsmith, J., Mundhenk. M.: The computational complexity of probabilistic planning. JAIR 9, 1–36 (1998)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Lobo, J., Mendez, G., Taylor, S.R.: Adding knowledge to the action description language a. In: Proc. of the 14th Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and 9th Conf. on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI/IAAI), pp. 454–459 (1997)

  56. Lobo. J.: COPLAS: a COnditional PLannner with Sensing Actions. In: FS-98-02. AAAI (1998)

  57. Lopatenko, A., Bertossi, L.: Complexity of consistent query answering in databases under cardinality-based and incremental repair semantics. In: Proc. of 11th Int. Conf. on Database Theory (ICDT), pp. 179–193 (2007)

  58. Makinson, D.: Screened revision. Theoria 63, 14–23 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  59. McIlraith, S.: Representing action and state constraints in model-based diagnosis. In: Proc. of the 14th Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and 9th Conf. on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI/IAAI), pp. 43–49 (1997)

  60. Moore, R.C.: A formal theory of knowledge and action. In: Hobbs, J.R., Moore, R.C. (eds.) Formal Theories of the Common Sense World, pp. 319–358 (1985)

  61. Nebel, B., Koehler, J.: Plan reuse versus plan generation: a theoretical and empirical analysis. Artif. Intell. 76(1–2), 427–454 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Niemelä, I., Simons, P.: Smodels: an implementation of the stable model and well-founded semantics for normal LP. In: Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR), pp. 420–429 (1997)

  63. Otero, M., Otero, R.P.: Using causality and actions for diagnosis. In: Proc. of 11th Int. Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, pp. 171–176 (2000)

  64. Papadimitriou, C.H.: Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass (1994)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  65. Poole, D.: Representing knowledge for logic-based diagnosis. In: Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Fifth Generation Computing Systems, pp. 1282–1290 (1988)

  66. Poole, D.: Normality and faults in logic-based diagnosis. In: Proc. of the 11th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 1304–1310 (1989)

  67. Reiter, R.: A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artif. Intell. 32(1), 57–96 (1987)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  68. Rintanen. J.: Constructing conditional plans by a theorem prover. JAIR 10, 323–352 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  69. Scherl, R.B., Levesque, H.J.: Knowledge, action, and the frame problem. Artif. Intell. 144(1–2), 1–39 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  70. Selman, A.L.: A taxonomy of complexity classes of functions. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 48(2), 357–381 (1994)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  71. Scherl, R., Levesque, H.J.: Knowledge producing actions. In: Proc. of the 9th Int. Conf. on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pp. 1139–1146 (1994)

  72. Son, T., Tu, P., Baral, C.: Planning with sensing actions and incomplete information using logic programming. In: Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR), pp. 261–274 (2004)

  73. Son, T.C., Baral, C.: Formalizing sensing actions a transition function based approach. Artif. Intell. 125(1–2), 19–91 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  74. Son, T.C., Tu, P.H., Baral, C.: Planning with sensing actions and incomplete information using logic programming. In: Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR), pp. 261–274 (2004)

  75. Son, T.C., Tu, P.H., Baral, C.: Reasoning and planning with sensing actions, incomplete information, and static causal laws using answer set programming. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 7(4), 377–450 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  76. Staworko, S., Chomicki, J., Marcinkowski, J.: Preference-driven querying of inconsistent relational databases. In: Proc. of EDBT Workshops, pp. 318–335 (2006)

  77. Struss, P., Dressler, O.: “Physical negation”—integrating fault models into the general diagnosis engine. In: Proc. of the 11th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 1318–1323 (1989)

  78. Subrahmanian, V.S., Amgoud, L.: A general framework for reasoning about inconsistency. In: Proc. of the 20th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 599–504 (2007)

  79. Thielscher, M.: A theory of dynamic diagnosis. Electron. Trans. Numer. Anal. 1, 73–104 (1997)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  80. Wijsen, J.: Database repairing using updates. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 30(3), 722–768 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DEIS, Università della Calabria, 87036, Rende, Italy

    Fabrizio Angiulli & Luigi Palopoli

  2. Dip. di Matematica, Università della Calabria, 87036, Rende, Italy

    Gianluigi Greco

Authors
  1. Fabrizio Angiulli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gianluigi Greco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luigi Palopoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabrizio Angiulli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Angiulli, F., Greco, G. & Palopoli, L. Detecting and repairing anomalous evolutions in noisy environments. Ann Math Artif Intell 60, 179–228 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-010-9220-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-010-9220-z

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)

Search

Navigation