Preferential Multi-Context Systems

Multi-context systems (MCS) presented by Brewka and Eiter can be considered as a promising way to interlink decentralized and heterogeneous knowledge contexts. In this paper, we propose preferential multi-context systems (PMCS), which provide a framework for incorporating a total preorder relation over contexts in a multi-context system. In a given PMCS, its contexts are divided into several parts according to the total preorder relation over them, moreover, only information flows from a context to ones of the same part or less preferred parts are allowed to occur. As such, the first $l$ preferred parts of an PMCS always fully capture the information exchange between contexts of these parts, and then compose another meaningful PMCS, termed the $l$-section of that PMCS. We generalize the equilibrium semantics for an MCS to the (maximal) $l_{\leq}$-equilibrium which represents belief states at least acceptable for the $l$-section of an PMCS. We also investigate inconsistency analysis in PMCS and related computational complexity issues

Belief Revision in Expressive Knowledge Representation Formalisms

We live in an era of data and information, where an immeasurable amount of discoveries, findings, events, news, and transactions are generated every second. Governments, companies, or individuals have to employ and process all that data for knowledge-based decision-making (i.e. a decision-making process that uses predetermined criteria to measure and ensure the optimal outcome for a specific topic), which then prompt them to view the knowledge as valuable resource. In this knowledge-based view, the capability to create and utilize knowledge is the key source of an organization or individual’s competitive advantage. This dynamic nature of knowledge leads us to the study of belief revision (or belief change), an area which emerged from work in philosophy and then impacted further developments in computer science and artificial intelligence. In belief revision area, the AGM postulates by Alchourrón, Gärdenfors, and Makinson continue to represent a cornerstone in research related to belief change. Katsuno and Mendelzon (K&M) adopted the AGM postulates for changing belief bases and characterized AGM belief base revision in propositional logic over finite signatures. In this thesis, two research directions are considered. In the first, by considering the semantic point of view, we generalize K&M’s approach to the setting of (multiple) base revision in arbitrary Tarskian logics, covering all logics with a classical model-theoretic semantics and hence a wide variety of logics used in knowledge representation and beyond. Our generic formulation applies to various notions of “base”, such as belief sets, arbitrary or finite sets of sentences, or single sentences. The core result is a representation theorem showing a two-way correspondence between AGM base revision operators and certain “assignments”: functions mapping belief bases to total — yet not transitive — “preference” relations between interpretations. Alongside, we present a companion result for the case when the AGM postulate of syntax-independence is abandoned. We also provide a characterization of all logics for which our result can be strengthened to assignments producing transitive preference relations (as in K&M’s original work), giving rise to two more representation theorems for such logics, according to syntax dependence vs. independence. The second research direction in this thesis explores two approaches for revising description logic knowledge bases under fixed-domain semantics, namely model-based approach and individual-based approach. In this logical setting, models of the knowledge bases can be enumerated and can be computed to produce the revision result, semantically. We show a characterization of the AGM revision operator for this logic and present a concrete model-based revision approach via distance between interpretations. In addition, by weakening the KB based on certain domain elements, a novel individual-based revision operator is provided as an alternative approach

Process Performance Analysis to Minimize Production Cost of Start-Up Culinary Business

Abstract. DeliBowl is a company engaged in the culinary field that offers a variety of rice bowl, which have been operated for a year. From the problems stated, the most significant issue is the inefficient of the production processes and the cost which causes the low of the profit margin. This problem negatively affect the performance of the company, mainly to get the high performance of the business. Therefore, the researcher conduct the research to develop the solution to the operational problems faced by DeliBowl. This research requires a benchmark to a culinary business named Yagami Ramen House which may have better operation management to be the milestone of the better recommendation which will be the result of this study. The objective of this research is to implement the proper operational strategy to push down the costs and get the high performance in order to solve their operational problems. The recommendation which is expected is after applying the strategies which will be discussed, DeliBowl process will be more efficient, low cost, and get the high performance. To do this research, the researcher collect primary data by observing the production at DeliBowl and interviewing Yagami Ramen House management. From those data, the researcher will analyze operational process, process performance and the production cost. The result of this research is the recommendation of operation management strategy which will be more efficient, low cost, and high performance.  Keywords—Operational  Process, Process Performance, Production Cost.Â

Principles of Indifference

The principle of indifference states that in the absence of any relevant evidence, a rational agent will distribute their credence equally among all the possible outcomes under consideration. Despite its intuitive plausibility, PI famously falls prey to paradox, and so is widely rejected as a principle of ideal rationality. In this article, I present a novel rehabilitation of PI in terms of the epistemology of comparative confidence judgments. In particular, I consider two natural comparative reformulations of PI and argue that while one of them prescribes the adoption of patently irrational epistemic states, the other provides a consistent formulation of PI that overcomes the most salient limitations of existing formulations