1,343 research outputs found
Resource-driven Substructural Defeasible Logic
Linear Logic and Defeasible Logic have been adopted to formalise different
features relevant to agents: consumption of resources, and reasoning with
exceptions. We propose a framework to combine sub-structural features,
corresponding to the consumption of resources, with defeasibility aspects, and
we discuss the design choices for the framework
Knowledge Representation Concepts for Automated SLA Management
Outsourcing of complex IT infrastructure to IT service providers has
increased substantially during the past years. IT service providers must be
able to fulfil their service-quality commitments based upon predefined Service
Level Agreements (SLAs) with the service customer. They need to manage, execute
and maintain thousands of SLAs for different customers and different types of
services, which needs new levels of flexibility and automation not available
with the current technology. The complexity of contractual logic in SLAs
requires new forms of knowledge representation to automatically draw inferences
and execute contractual agreements. A logic-based approach provides several
advantages including automated rule chaining allowing for compact knowledge
representation as well as flexibility to adapt to rapidly changing business
requirements. We suggest adequate logical formalisms for representation and
enforcement of SLA rules and describe a proof-of-concept implementation. The
article describes selected formalisms of the ContractLog KR and their adequacy
for automated SLA management and presents results of experiments to demonstrate
flexibility and scalability of the approach.Comment: Paschke, A. and Bichler, M.: Knowledge Representation Concepts for
Automated SLA Management, Int. Journal of Decision Support Systems (DSS),
submitted 19th March 200
Handling Defeasibilities in Action Domains
Representing defeasibility is an important issue in common sense reasoning.
In reasoning about action and change, this issue becomes more difficult because
domain and action related defeasible information may conflict with general
inertia rules. Furthermore, different types of defeasible information may also
interfere with each other during the reasoning. In this paper, we develop a
prioritized logic programming approach to handle defeasibilities in reasoning
about action. In particular, we propose three action languages {\cal AT}^{0},
{\cal AT}^{1} and {\cal AT}^{2} which handle three types of defeasibilities in
action domains named defeasible constraints, defeasible observations and
actions with defeasible and abnormal effects respectively. Each language with a
higher superscript can be viewed as an extension of the language with a lower
superscript. These action languages inherit the simple syntax of {\cal A}
language but their semantics is developed in terms of transition systems where
transition functions are defined based on prioritized logic programs. By
illustrating various examples, we show that our approach eventually provides a
powerful mechanism to handle various defeasibilities in temporal prediction and
postdiction. We also investigate semantic properties of these three action
languages and characterize classes of action domains that present more
desirable solutions in reasoning about action within the underlying action
languages.Comment: 49 pages, 1 figure, to be appeared in journal Theory and Practice
Logic Programmin
A Framework for Combining Defeasible Argumentation with Labeled Deduction
In the last years, there has been an increasing demand of a variety of
logical systems, prompted mostly by applications of logic in AI and other
related areas. Labeled Deductive Systems (LDS) were developed as a flexible
methodology to formalize such a kind of complex logical systems. Defeasible
argumentation has proven to be a successful approach to formalizing commonsense
reasoning, encompassing many other alternative formalisms for defeasible
reasoning. Argument-based frameworks share some common notions (such as the
concept of argument, defeater, etc.) along with a number of particular features
which make it difficult to compare them with each other from a logical
viewpoint. This paper introduces LDSar, a LDS for defeasible argumentation in
which many important issues concerning defeasible argumentation are captured
within a unified logical framework. We also discuss some logical properties and
extensions that emerge from the proposed framework.Comment: 15 pages, presented at CMSRA Workshop 2003. Buenos Aires, Argentin
Recommended from our members
Value-based argumentation frameworks as neural-symbolic learning systems
While neural networks have been successfully used in a number of machine learning applications, logical languages have been the standard for the representation of argumentative reasoning. In this paper, we establish a relationship between neural networks and argumentation networks, combining reasoning and learning in the same argumentation framework. We do so by presenting a new neural argumentation algorithm, responsible for translating argumentation networks into standard neural networks. We then show a correspondence between the two networks. The algorithm works not only for acyclic argumentation networks, but also for circular networks, and it enables the accrual of arguments through learning as well as the parallel computation of arguments
- …