6,049 research outputs found
Narrative based Postdictive Reasoning for Cognitive Robotics
Making sense of incomplete and conflicting narrative knowledge in the
presence of abnormalities, unobservable processes, and other real world
considerations is a challenge and crucial requirement for cognitive robotics
systems. An added challenge, even when suitably specialised action languages
and reasoning systems exist, is practical integration and application within
large-scale robot control frameworks.
In the backdrop of an autonomous wheelchair robot control task, we report on
application-driven work to realise postdiction triggered abnormality detection
and re-planning for real-time robot control: (a) Narrative-based knowledge
about the environment is obtained via a larger smart environment framework; and
(b) abnormalities are postdicted from stable-models of an answer-set program
corresponding to the robot's epistemic model. The overall reasoning is
performed in the context of an approximate epistemic action theory based
planner implemented via a translation to answer-set programming.Comment: Commonsense Reasoning Symposium, Ayia Napa, Cyprus, 201
A Gentle Introduction to Epistemic Planning: The DEL Approach
Epistemic planning can be used for decision making in multi-agent situations
with distributed knowledge and capabilities. Dynamic Epistemic Logic (DEL) has
been shown to provide a very natural and expressive framework for epistemic
planning. In this paper, we aim to give an accessible introduction to DEL-based
epistemic planning. The paper starts with the most classical framework for
planning, STRIPS, and then moves towards epistemic planning in a number of
smaller steps, where each step is motivated by the need to be able to model
more complex planning scenarios.Comment: In Proceedings M4M9 2017, arXiv:1703.0173
Transparency in Complex Computational Systems
Scientists depend on complex computational systems that are often ineliminably opaque, to the detriment of our ability to give scientific explanations and detect artifacts. Some philosophers have s..
Reasons for Reliabilism
One leading approach to justification comes from the reliabilist tradition, which maintains that a belief is justified provided that it is reliably formed. Another comes from the ‘Reasons First’ tradition, which claims that a belief is justified provided that it is based on reasons that support it. These two approaches are typically developed in isolation from each other; this essay motivates and defends a synthesis. On the view proposed here, justification is understood in terms of an agent’s reasons for belief, which are in turn analyzed along reliabilist lines: an agent's reasons for belief are the states that serve as inputs to their reliable processes. I show that this synthesis allows each tradition to profit from the other's explanatory resources. In particular, it enables reliabilists to explain epistemic defeat without abandoning their naturalistic ambitions. I go on to compare my proposed synthesis with other hybrid versions of reliabilism that have been proposed in the literature
Bisimulation and expressivity for conditional belief, degrees of belief, and safe belief
Plausibility models are Kripke models that agents use to reason about
knowledge and belief, both of themselves and of each other. Such models are
used to interpret the notions of conditional belief, degrees of belief, and
safe belief. The logic of conditional belief contains that modality and also
the knowledge modality, and similarly for the logic of degrees of belief and
the logic of safe belief. With respect to these logics, plausibility models may
contain too much information. A proper notion of bisimulation is required that
characterises them. We define that notion of bisimulation and prove the
required characterisations: on the class of image-finite and preimage-finite
models (with respect to the plausibility relation), two pointed Kripke models
are modally equivalent in either of the three logics, if and only if they are
bisimilar. As a result, the information content of such a model can be
similarly expressed in the logic of conditional belief, or the logic of degrees
of belief, or that of safe belief. This, we found a surprising result. Still,
that does not mean that the logics are equally expressive: the logics of
conditional and degrees of belief are incomparable, the logics of degrees of
belief and safe belief are incomparable, while the logic of safe belief is more
expressive than the logic of conditional belief. In view of the result on
bisimulation characterisation, this is an equally surprising result. We hope
our insights may contribute to the growing community of formal epistemology and
on the relation between qualitative and quantitative modelling
Creationism and evolution
In Tower of Babel, Robert Pennock wrote that
“defenders of evolution would help their case
immeasurably if they would reassure their
audience that morality, purpose, and meaning are
not lost by accepting the truth of evolution.” We
first consider the thesis that the creationists’
movement exploits moral concerns to spread its
ideas against the theory of evolution. We analyze
their arguments and possible reasons why they are
easily accepted. Creationists usually employ two
contradictive strategies to expose the purported
moral degradation that comes with accepting the
theory of evolution. On the one hand they claim
that evolutionary theory is immoral. On the other
hand creationists think of evolutionary theory as
amoral. Both objections come naturally in a
monotheistic view. But we can find similar
conclusions about the supposed moral aspects of
evolution in non-religiously inspired discussions.
Meanwhile, the creationism-evolution debate
mainly focuses — understandably — on what
constitutes good science. We consider the need for
moral reassurance and analyze reassuring
arguments from philosophers. Philosophers may
stress that science does not prescribe and is
therefore not immoral, but this reaction opens the
door for the objection of amorality that evolution
— as a naturalistic world view at least —
supposedly endorses. We consider that the topic of
morality and its relation to the acceptance of
evolution may need more empirical research
Verifying existence of resource-bounded coalition uniform strategies
We consider the problem of whether a coalition of agents has a knowledge-based strategy to ensure some outcome under a resource bound. We extend previous work on verification of multi-agent systems where actions of agents produce and consume resources, by adding epistemic pre- and postconditions to actions. This allows us to model scenarios where agents perform both actions which change the world, and actions which change their knowledge about the world, such as observation and communication. To avoid logical omniscience and obtain a compact model of the system, our model of agents’ knowledge is syntactic.We define a class of coalition-uniform strategies with respect to any (decidable) notion of coalition knowledge. We show that the model-checking problem for the resulting logic is decidable for any notion of coalition uniform strategies in these classes
- …