Reason Maintenance - State of the Art

This paper describes state of the art in reason maintenance with a focus on its future usage in the KiWi project. To give a bigger picture of the field, it also mentions closely related issues such as non-monotonic logic and paraconsistency. The paper is organized as follows: first, two motivating scenarios referring to semantic wikis are presented which are then used to introduce the different reason maintenance techniques

An abstract machine for the execution of DeLP programs

Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) is a knowledge representation and reasoning formalism that by combining Logic Programming with Defeasible Argumentation is able to represent incomplete and potentially contradictory information. Within the field of Logic Programming, most of the implementations of Prolog and its variants are based on an abstract machine defined by D. Warren (nowadays known as WAM, standing for Warren’s Abstract Machine), that sits between the program and the actual hardware executing it. This separation of concerns allows the developer to focus mainly on the aspects related to the language being implemented, and not on the distinctive characteristics of the available hardware. In this paper we summarize how an abstract machine can also help in the context of DeLP, exploring the points of contact between WAM and a particular abstract machine defined for this theory called JAM.Eje: V - Workshop de agentes y sistemas inteligentesRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Development of a Logic Layer in the Semantic Web: Research Issues

The ontology layer of the semantic web is now mature enough (i.e. standards like RDF, RDFs, OWL, OWL 2) and the next step is to work on a logic layer for the development of advanced reasoning capabilities for knowledge extraction and efficient decision making. Adding logic to the web means using rules to make inferences. Rules are a means of expressing business processes, policies, contracts etc but most of the studies have focused on the use of monotonic logics in layered development of the semantic web which provides no mechanism for representing or handling incomplete or contradictory information respectively. This paper discusses argumentation, semantic web and defeasible logic programming with their distinct features and identifies the different research issues that need to be addressed in order to realize defeasible argumentative reasoning in the semantic web applications

Argumentation for Knowledge Representation, Conflict Resolution, Defeasible Inference and Its Integration with Machine Learning

Modern machine Learning is devoted to the construction of algorithms and computational procedures that can automatically improve with experience and learn from data. Defeasible argumentation has emerged as sub-topic of artificial intelligence aimed at formalising common-sense qualitative reasoning. The former is an inductive approach for inference while the latter is deductive, each one having advantages and limitations. A great challenge for theoretical and applied research in AI is their integration. The first aim of this chapter is to provide readers informally with the basic notions of defeasible and non-monotonic reasoning. It then describes argumentation theory, a paradigm for implementing defeasible reasoning in practice as well as the common multi-layer schema upon which argument-based systems are usually built. The second aim is to describe a selection of argument-based applications in the medical and health-care sectors, informed by the multi-layer schema. A summary of the features that emerge from the applications under review is aimed at showing why defeasible argumentation is attractive for knowledge-representation, conflict resolution and inference under uncertainty. Open problems and challenges in the field of argumentation are subsequently described followed by a future outlook in which three points of integration with machine learning are proposed

Designing Normative Theories for Ethical and Legal Reasoning: LogiKEy Framework, Methodology, and Tool Support

A framework and methodology---termed LogiKEy---for the design and engineering of ethical reasoners, normative theories and deontic logics is presented. The overall motivation is the development of suitable means for the control and governance of intelligent autonomous systems. LogiKEy's unifying formal framework is based on semantical embeddings of deontic logics, logic combinations and ethico-legal domain theories in expressive classic higher-order logic (HOL). This meta-logical approach enables the provision of powerful tool support in LogiKEy: off-the-shelf theorem provers and model finders for HOL are assisting the LogiKEy designer of ethical intelligent agents to flexibly experiment with underlying logics and their combinations, with ethico-legal domain theories, and with concrete examples---all at the same time. Continuous improvements of these off-the-shelf provers, without further ado, leverage the reasoning performance in LogiKEy. Case studies, in which the LogiKEy framework and methodology has been applied and tested, give evidence that HOL's undecidability often does not hinder efficient experimentation.Comment: 50 pages; 10 figure

Bounded Rationality and Heuristics in Humans and in Artificial Cognitive Systems

In this paper I will present an analysis of the impact that the notion of “bounded rationality”, introduced by Herbert Simon in his book “Administrative Behavior”, produced in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI). In particular, by focusing on the field of Automated Decision Making (ADM), I will show how the introduction of the cognitive dimension into the study of choice of a rational (natural) agent, indirectly determined - in the AI field - the development of a line of research aiming at the realisation of artificial systems whose decisions are based on the adoption of powerful shortcut strategies (known as heuristics) based on “satisficing” - i.e. non optimal - solutions to problem solving. I will show how the “heuristic approach” to problem solving allowed, in AI, to face problems of combinatorial complexity in real-life situations and still represents an important strategy for the design and implementation of intelligent systems

Comparing and Extending the Use of Defeasible Argumentation with Quantitative Data in Real-World Contexts

Dealing with uncertain, contradicting, and ambiguous information is still a central issue in Artificial Intelligence (AI). As a result, many formalisms have been proposed or adapted so as to consider non-monotonicity. A non-monotonic formalism is one that allows the retraction of previous conclusions or claims, from premises, in light of new evidence, offering some desirable flexibility when dealing with uncertainty. Among possible options, knowledge-base, non-monotonic reasoning approaches have seen their use being increased in practice. Nonetheless, only a limited number of works and researchers have performed any sort of comparison among them. This research article focuses on evaluating the inferential capacity of defeasible argumentation, a formalism particularly envisioned for modelling non-monotonic reasoning. In addition to this, fuzzy reasoning and expert systems, extended for handling non-monotonicity of reasoning, are selected and employed as baselines, due to their vast and accepted use within the AI community. Computational trust was selected as the domain of application of such models. Trust is an ill-defined construct, hence, reasoning applied to the inference of trust can be seen as non-monotonic. Inference models were designed to assign trust scalars to editors of the Wikipedia project. Scalars assigned to recognised trustworthy editors provided the basis for the analysis of the models’ inferential capacity according to evaluation metrics from the domain of computational trust. In particular, argument-based models demonstrated more robustness than those built upon the baselines despite the knowledge bases or datasets employed. This study contributes to the body of knowledge through the exploitation of defeasible argumentation and its comparison to similar approaches. It provides publicly implementations for the designed models of inference, which might be a useful aid to scholars interested in performing non-monotonic reasoning activities. It adds to previous works, empirically enhancing the generalisability of defeasible argumentation as a compelling approach to reason with quantitative data and uncertain knowledge

ArgFrame: A Multi-Layer, Web, Argument-Based Framework for Quantitative Reasoning

Multiple systems have been proposed to perform computational argumentation activities, but there is a lack of options for dealing with quantitative inferences. This multi-layer, web, argument-based framework has been proposed as a tool to perform automated reasoning with numerical data. It is able to use boolean logic for the creation of if-then rules and attacking rules. In turn, these rules/arguments can be activated or not by some input data, have their attacks solved (following some Dung or rank-based semantics), and finally aggregated in different fashions in order to produce a prediction (a number). The framework is implemented in PHP for the back-end. A JavaScript interface is provided for creating arguments, attacks among arguments, and performing case-by-case analyses