Reasoning about Action: An Argumentation - Theoretic Approach

We present a uniform non-monotonic solution to the problems of reasoning about action on the basis of an argumentation-theoretic approach. Our theory is provably correct relative to a sensible minimisation policy introduced on top of a temporal propositional logic. Sophisticated problem domains can be formalised in our framework. As much attention of researchers in the field has been paid to the traditional and basic problems in reasoning about actions such as the frame, the qualification and the ramification problems, approaches to these problems within our formalisation lie at heart of the expositions presented in this paper

Metatheory of actions: beyond consistency

Consistency check has been the only criterion for theory evaluation in logic-based approaches to reasoning about actions. This work goes beyond that and contributes to the metatheory of actions by investigating what other properties a good domain description in reasoning about actions should have. We state some metatheoretical postulates concerning this sore spot. When all postulates are satisfied together we have a modular action theory. Besides being easier to understand and more elaboration tolerant in McCarthy's sense, modular theories have interesting properties. We point out the problems that arise when the postulates about modularity are violated and propose algorithmic checks that can help the designer of an action theory to overcome them

Compiling Causal Theories to Successor State Axioms and STRIPS-Like Systems

We describe a system for specifying the effects of actions. Unlike those commonly used in AI planning, our system uses an action description language that allows one to specify the effects of actions using domain rules, which are state constraints that can entail new action effects from old ones. Declaratively, an action domain in our language corresponds to a nonmonotonic causal theory in the situation calculus. Procedurally, such an action domain is compiled into a set of logical theories, one for each action in the domain, from which fully instantiated successor state-like axioms and STRIPS-like systems are then generated. We expect the system to be a useful tool for knowledge engineers writing action specifications for classical AI planning systems, GOLOG systems, and other systems where formal specifications of actions are needed

Naval Integration into Joint Data Strategies and Architectures in JADC2

NPS NRP Technical ReportAs Joint capabilities mature and shape into the Joint All Domain C2 Concept, Services, COCOMs and Coalition Partners will need to invest into efforts that would seamlessly integrate into Joint capabilities. The objective for the Navy is to study the options for Navy, including Naval Special Warfare Command under SOCOM, on how to integrate Navy's data strategy and architecture under the unifying JADC2 umbrella. The other objectives are to explore alternatives considered by the SOCOM and the Air Force, which are responsible for JADC2 Information Advantage and Digital Mission Command & Control. A major purpose of Joint, Services/COCOMs, agencies and Coalition Partners capabilities is to provide shared core of integrated canonical services for data, information, and knowledge with representations for vertical interoperability across all command levels and JADC2, lateral interoperability between Naval Service/COCOMs, and any combination of JADC2 constituents, agencies, and coalition partners. Our research plan is to explore available data strategy options by leveraging previous NRP work (NPS-20-N313-A). We will participate in emerging data strategy by Navy JADC2 project Overmatch. By working with MITRE our team will explore Air Force JADC2 data strategy implemented in ABMS DataOne component. Our goal is to find a seamless integration between Naval Data Strategy and data strategies behind JADC2 Information Advantage and Digital Mission Command & Control capabilities. Our plan includes studying Service-to-Service and Service-to-COCOM interoperability options required for Joint operations with a goal to minimize OODA's loop latency across sensing, situation discovery & monitoring, and knowledge understanding-for-planning, deciding, and acting. Our team realizes JADC2 requires virtual model allowing interoperability between subordinate C2 for services, agencies, and partner. Without such flexible 'joint' intersection organizational principal hierarchical structure it would be impossible to define necessary temporal and spatial fidelities for each level of organizational command required for implanting JADC2. Research deliverables will document the results of the exploration of Joint, COCOM, Agency and Partner Data Strategies approaches as JADC2 interoperability options to the emerging JADC2. We strive for standard JADC2 interface. Keywords: JADC2, ABMS, DataOne, Information Advantage, Digital Mission Command, IntegrationN2/N6 - Information WarfareThis research is supported by funding from the Naval Postgraduate School, Naval Research Program (PE 0605853N/2098). https://nps.edu/nrpChief of Naval Operations (CNO)Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.

Moral luck and responsible innovation management

Bibliogr. s. 122-128The study discusses the three roles of normative assumption in the theory and practice of innovation management: (1) they define the value of innovation, (2) specify its luck, and (3) determine some goals and methodologies of managing the luck of innovations. The crucial questions of the investigation are as follows: What does ‘luck’ mean in theories of innovation management?, and What is luck in the practice of innovation management? The conceptual analyses present logical links which occur between the normative premises of some canonical theories of metaethics and definitions of luck. In the context of these analyses the study discusses some prerequisites for responsible decisions relating to innovations. The paper illustrates some ways of using philosophical methods in the theory of innovation management

A review of proposed principles of causal non-monotonic reasoning

Within Non-monotonic Reasoning, numerous principles of causal reasoning have been proposed. Many of these principles have been viewed as desirable in formalisms that reason with causality, and have been widely adopted throughout the literature. We provide a critique of these principles, evaluate their suitability for characterising and formulating causal non-monotonic reasoning, and find that most are unsuitable. Further, we discuss a new approach to causal non-monotonic reasoning motivated by how humans typically reason with causality

A review of proposed principles of causal non-monotonic reasoning

Within Non-monotonic Reasoning, numerous principles of causal reasoning have been proposed. Many of these principles have been viewed as desirable in formalisms that reason with causality, and have been widely adopted throughout the literature. We provide a critique of these principles, evaluate their suitability for characterising and formulating causal non-monotonic reasoning, and find that most are unsuitable. Further, we discuss a new approach to causal non-monotonic reasoning motivated by how humans typically reason with causality

Adding Causal Relationships to DL-based Action Formalisms

In the reasoning about actions community, causal relationships have been proposed as a possible approach for solving the ramification problem, i. e., the problem of how to deal with indirect effects of actions. In this paper, we show that causal relationships can be added to action formalisms based on Description Logics without destroying the decidability of the consistency and the projection problem

A Strategy for Implementing description Temporal Dynamic Algorithms in Dynamic Knowledge Graphs by SPIN

Planning and reasoning about actions and processes, in addition to reasoning about propositions, are important issues in recent logical and computer science studies. The widespread use of actions in everyday life such as IoT, semantic web services, etc., and the limitations and issues in the action formalisms are two factors that lead us to study how actions are represented. Since 2007, there have been some ideas to integrate Description Logic (DL) and action formalisms for representing both static and dynamic knowledge. Meanwhile, time is an important factor in dynamic situations, and actions change states over time. In this study, on the one hand, we examined related logical structures such as extensions of description logics (DLs), temporal formalisms, and action formalisms. On the other hand, we analyzed possible tools for designing and developing the Knowledge and Action Base (KAB). For representation and reasoning about actions, we embedded actions into DLs (such as Dynamic-ALC and its extensions). We propose a terminable algorithm for action projection, planning, checking the satisfiability, consistency, realizability, and executability, and also querying from KAB. Actions in this framework were modeled with SPIN and added to state space. This framework has also been implemented as a plugin for the Prot\'eg\'e ontology editor. During the last two decades, various algorithms have been presented, but due to the high computational complexity, we face many problems in implementing dynamic ontologies. In addition, an algorithm to detect the inconsistency of actions' effects was not explicitly stated. In the proposed strategy, the interactions of actions with other parts of modeled knowledge, and a method to check consistency between the effects of actions are presented. With this framework, the ramification problem can be well handled in future works