Skip to main content

Policy Analytics Generation Using Action Probabilistic Logic Programs

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Computational Approaches to Counterterrorism

Abstract

Action probabilistic logic programs (ap-programs for short) [15] are a class of the extensively studied family of probabilistic logic programs [14, 21, 22].

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Action atoms only represent the fact} that an action is taken, and not the action itself; we assume that effects and preconditions are generally not known.

  2. 2.

    http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/research/LCCD/projects/let.jsp

  3. 3.

    Note that variables can have more than two possible values; therefore, even though murder(1) is equivalent to \(\neg \) murder(0) because murder is a binary variable, this does not hold in general.

  4. 4.

    We assume that \(\infty \) represents a value for which, in finite-precision arithmetic, \(\frac{1} {\infty } = 0\) and \({x}^{\infty } = \infty \) when x > 1. The IEEE 754 floating point standard satisfies these rules.

  5. 5.

    In an actual implementation, the probability distribution should be represented implicitly, as storing a probability for an exponential number of states would be intractable.

References

  1. Baldoni M, Giordano L, Martelli A, Patti V (1997) An abductive proof procedure for reasoning about actions in modal logic programming. In: Selected papers from NMELP ’96. Springer, London, pp 132–150

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bonet JSD, Isbell CL Jr, Viola PA (1996) MIMIC: finding optima by estimating probability densities. In: Proceedings of NIPS ’96. MIT press, USA, pp 424–430

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bryson JJ, Ando Y, Lehmann H (2007) Agent-based modelling as scientific method: a case study analysing primate social behaviour. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 362(1485):1685–1698

    Google Scholar 

  4. Christiansen H (2008) Implementing probabilistic abductive logic programming with constraint handling rules. In: Constraint handling rules. Springer, Berlin/New York, pp 85–118

    Google Scholar 

  5. Console L, Torasso P (1991) A spectrum of logical definitions of model-based diagnosis. Comput Intell 7(3):133–141

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cooper G, Herskovits E (1992) A Bayesian method for the induction of probabilistic networks from data. Mach Learn 9(4):309–347

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  8. Eshghi K (1988) Abductive planning with event calculus. In: Proceedings of ICLP. MIT Press, USA, pp 562–579, ISBN 0-262-61056-6

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fagin R, Halpern JY, Megiddo N (1990) A logic for reasoning about probabilities. Inf Comput 87(1/2):78–128

    Google Scholar 

  10. Giles J (2008) Can conflict forecasts predict violence hotspots? New Sci (2647)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hailperin T (1984) Probability logic. Notre Dame J Form Log 25(3):198–212

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hall M, Frank E, Holmes G, Pfahringer B, Reutemann P, Witten I (2009) The WEKA data mining software: an update. ACM SIGKDD Explor Newsl 11(1):10–18

    Google Scholar 

  13. Josang A (2008) Magdalena, L, Ojeda-Aciego, M, Verdegay, J.L. Abductive reasoning with uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the IPMU 2008, Torremolinos, Malaga, Spain. pp 9–16

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kern-Isberner G, Lukasiewicz T (2004) Combining probabilistic logic programming with the power of maximum entropy. Artif Intell 157(1–2):139–202

    Google Scholar 

  15. Khuller S, Martinez MV, Nau DS, Sliva A, Simari GI, Subrahmanian VS (2007) Computing most probable worlds of action probabilistic logic programs: scalable estimation for 1030, 000 worlds. Ann Math Artif Intell 51(2–4):295–331

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kohlas J, Berzati D, Haenni R (2002) Probabilistic argumentation systems and abduction. Ann Math Artif Intell 34(1–3):177–195

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lloyd JW (1987) Foundations of logic programming, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin/New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mannes A, Michael M, Pate A, Sliva A, Subrahmanian VS, Wilkenfeld J (2008) Stochastic opponent modeling agents: a case study with Hamas. In: Proceedings of ICCCD 2008, AAAI Press, USA, ISBN 978-1-57735-389-8

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mannes A, Michael M, Pate A, Sliva A, Subrahmanian VS, Wilkenfeld J (2008) Stochastic opponent modelling agents: a case study with Hezbollah. In: Liu H, Salerno J (eds) Proceedings of the first international workshop on social computing, behavioral modeling, and prediction, Springer, Germany, ISBN 978-0-387-77671-2

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mannes A, Shakarian J, Sliva A, Subrahmanian VS (2011) A computationally-enabled analysis of Lashkar-e-Taiba attacks in Jammu and Kashmir. In: Proceedings of EISIC. IEEE Computer Society, pp 224–229, ISBN 978-0-7695-4406-9

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ng RT, Subrahmanian VS (1992) Probabilistic logic programming. Inf Comput 101(2): 150–201

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ng RT, Subrahmanian VS (1993) A semantical framework for supporting subjective and conditional probabilities in deductive databases. J Autom Reason 10(2):191–235

    Google Scholar 

  23. Nilsson N (1986) Probabilistic logic. Artif Intell 28:71–87

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pearl J (1988) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  25. Poole D (1997) The independent choice logic for modelling multiple agents under uncertainty. Artif Intell 94(1–2):7–56

    Google Scholar 

  26. Simari GI, Subrahmanian VS (2010) Abductive inference in probabilistic logic programs. In: Technical communications of ICLP’10. LIPIcs, vol 7, Schloss Dagstuhl. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik 2010, ISBN 978-3-939897-17-0, pp 192–201

    Google Scholar 

  27. Simari GI, Dickerson JP, Subrahmanian VS (2010) Cost-based query answering in probabilistic logic programs. In: Proceedings of SUM 2010. LNCS. Springer, Berlin, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  28. Simari GI, Dickerson JP, Sliva A, Subrahmanian VS (2012) Parallel abductive query answering in probabilistic logic programs. Trans Comput Log

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Some of the authors of this paper were funded in part by AFOSR grant FA95500610405, ARO grant W911NF0910206 and ONR grant N000140910685.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerardo I. Simari .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Simari, G.I., Dickerson, J.P., Sliva, A., Subrahmanian, V.S. (2013). Policy Analytics Generation Using Action Probabilistic Logic Programs. In: Subrahmanian, V. (eds) Handbook of Computational Approaches to Counterterrorism. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5311-6_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5311-6_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5310-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5311-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics