An Approach to Fuzzy Modal Logic of Time Intervals

Temporal reasoning based on intervals is nowadays ubiquitous in artificial intelligence, and the most representative interval temporal logic, called HS, was introduced by Halpern and Shoham in the eighties. There has been a great effort in the past in studying the expressive power and computational properties of the satisfiability problem for HS and its fragments, but only recently HS has been proposed as a suitable formalism for artificial intelligence applications. Such applications highlighted some of the intrinsic limits of HS: Sometimes, when dealing with real-life data one is not able to express temporal relations and propositional labels in a definite, crisp way. In this paper, following the seminal ideas of Fitting and Zadeh, among others, we present a fuzzy generalization of HS that partially solves such problems of expressive power, and we prove that, as in the crisp case, its satisfiability problem is generally undecidable

28th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME 2021)

The 28th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME 2021) was planned to take place in Klagenfurt, Austria, but had to move to an online conference due to the insecurities and restrictions caused by the pandemic. Since its frst edition in 1994, TIME Symposium is quite unique in the panorama of the scientifc conferences as its main goal is to bring together researchers from distinct research areas involving the management and representation of temporal data as well as the reasoning about temporal aspects of information. Moreover, TIME Symposium aims to bridge theoretical and applied research, as well as to serve as an interdisciplinary forum for exchange among researchers from the areas of artifcial intelligence, database management, logic and verifcation, and beyond

Finding optimal alternatives based on efficient comparative preference inference

Choosing the right or the best option is often a demanding and challenging task for the user (e.g., a customer in an online retailer) when there are many available alternatives. In fact, the user rarely knows which offering will provide the highest value. To reduce the complexity of the choice process, automated recommender systems generate personalized recommendations. These recommendations take into account the preferences collected from the user in an explicit (e.g., letting users express their opinion about items) or implicit (e.g., studying some behavioral features) way. Such systems are widespread; research indicates that they increase the customers' satisfaction and lead to higher sales. Preference handling is one of the core issues in the design of every recommender system. This kind of system often aims at guiding users in a personalized way to interesting or useful options in a large space of possible options. Therefore, it is important for them to catch and model the user's preferences as accurately as possible. In this thesis, we develop a comparative preference-based user model to represent the user's preferences in conversational recommender systems. This type of user model allows the recommender system to capture several preference nuances from the user's feedback. We show that, when applied to conversational recommender systems, the comparative preference-based model is able to guide the user towards the best option while the system is interacting with her. We empirically test and validate the suitability and the practical computational aspects of the comparative preference-based user model and the related preference relations by comparing them to a sum of weights-based user model and the related preference relations. Product configuration, scheduling a meeting and the construction of autonomous agents are among several artificial intelligence tasks that involve a process of constrained optimization, that is, optimization of behavior or options subject to given constraints with regards to a set of preferences. When solving a constrained optimization problem, pruning techniques, such as the branch and bound technique, point at directing the search towards the best assignments, thus allowing the bounding functions to prune more branches in the search tree. Several constrained optimization problems may exhibit dominance relations. These dominance relations can be particularly useful in constrained optimization problems as they can instigate new ways (rules) of pruning non optimal solutions. Such pruning methods can achieve dramatic reductions in the search space while looking for optimal solutions. A number of constrained optimization problems can model the user's preferences using the comparative preferences. In this thesis, we develop a set of pruning rules used in the branch and bound technique to efficiently solve this kind of optimization problem. More specifically, we show how to generate newly defined pruning rules from a dominance algorithm that refers to a set of comparative preferences. These rules include pruning approaches (and combinations of them) which can drastically prune the search space. They mainly reduce the number of (expensive) pairwise comparisons performed during the search while guiding constrained optimization algorithms to find optimal solutions. Our experimental results show that the pruning rules that we have developed and their different combinations have varying impact on the performance of the branch and bound technique

Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning

These are the proceedings of the 11th Nonmonotonic Reasoning Workshop. The aim of this series is to bring together active researchers in the broad area of nonmonotonic reasoning, including belief revision, reasoning about actions, planning, logic programming, argumentation, causality, probabilistic and possibilistic approaches to KR, and other related topics. As part of the program of the 11th workshop, we have assessed the status of the field and discussed issues such as: Significant recent achievements in the theory and automation of NMR; Critical short and long term goals for NMR; Emerging new research directions in NMR; Practical applications of NMR; Significance of NMR to knowledge representation and AI in general

International Workshop on Description Logics : Bonn, May 28/29, 1994

This collection of papers forms the permanent record of the 1994 Description Logic Workshop, that was held at the Gustav Stresemann Institut in Bonn, Germany on 28 and 29 May 1994, immediately after the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. The workshop was set up to be as informal as possible, so this collection cannot hope to capture the discussions associated with the workshop. However, we hope that it will serve to remind participants of their discussion at the workshop, and provide non-participants with indications of the topics that were discussed at the workshop. The workshop consisted of seven regular sessions and one panel session. Each regular session had about four short presentations on a single theme, but also had considerable time reserved for discussion. The themes of the sessions were Foundations of Description Logics, Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems, Language Extensions, Expanding Description Logics, General Applications of Description Logics, Natural Language Applications of Description Logics, Connections between Description Logics and Databases, and the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems. The session on Foundations of Description Logics concentrated on computational properties of description logics, correspondences between description logics and other formalisms, and on semantics of description logics, Similarly, there is discussion on how to develop tractable desription logics, for some notion of tractable, and whether it is useful to worry about achieving tractability at all. Several of the participants argued in favour of a very expressive description logic. This obviously precludes tractability or even decidability of complete reasoning. Klaus Schild proposed that for some purposes one could employ "model checking" (i .e., a closed world assumption) instead of "theorem proving," and has shown that this is still tractable for very large languages. Maurizio Lenzerini\u27s opinion was that it is important to have decidable languages. Tractability cannot be achieved in several application areas because there one needs very expressive constructs: e.g., axioms, complex role constructors, and cycles with fixed-point semantics. For Bob MacGregor, not even decidability is an issue since he claims that Loom\u27s incomplete reasoner is sufficient for his applications. The discussion addressed the question of whether there is still need for foundations, and whether the work on foundation done until now really solved the problems that the designers of early DL systems had. Both questions were mostly answered in the affirmative, with the caveat that new research on foundations should make sure that it is concerned with "real" problems, and not just generates new problems. In the session on Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems the participants considered different ways of putting together description logics and description logic systems. One way of doing this is to have a different kind of inference strategy for description logics, such as one based on intuitionistic logics or one based directly on rules of inference-thus allowing variant systems. Another way of modifying description logic systems is to divide them up in different ways, such as making a terminology consist of a schema portion and a view portion. Some discussion in this session concerned whether architectures should be influenced by application areas, or even by particular applications. There was considerable discussion at the workshop on how Description Logics should be extended or expanded to make them more useful. There are several methods to do this. The first is to extend the language of descriptions, e.g ., to represent n-ary relations, temporal information, or whole-part relationships, all of which were discussed at the workshop. The second is to add in another kind of reasoning, such as default reasoning, while still keeping the general framework of description logic reasoning. The third is to incorporate descriptions or description-like constructs in a larger reasoner, such as a first order reasoner. This was the approach taken in OMEGA and is the approach being taken in the Loom project. There have been many extensions of the first two kinds proposed for description logics, including several presented at the workshop. One quest ion discussed at the workshop was whether these extensions fit in well with the philosophy of description logic. Another question was whether the presence of many proposals for extensions means that description logics are easy to expand, or that description logics are inadequate representation formalisms? The general consensus was that description logics adequately capture a certain kind of core reasoning and that they lend themselves to incorporation with other kinds of reasoning. Care must be taken, however, to keep the extended versions true to the goals of description logics. The sessions on Applications of Description Logics had presentations on applications of description logics in various areas, including configuration, tutoring, natural language processing, and domain modeling. Most of these applications are research applications, funded by government research programs. There was discussion of what is needed to have more fielded applications of description logics. The session on Connections between Description Logics and Databases considered three kinds of connections between Description Logics and Databases: 1. using Description Logics for expressing database schemas, including local schemas, integrated schemas, and views, integrity constraints, and queries; 2. using Description Logic reasoning for various database-related reasoning, including schema integration and validation, and query optimization, and query validation and organization; and 3. making Description Logic reasoners more like Database Mangagement Systems via optimization. All three of these connections are being actively investigated by the description logic community. The panel session on the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems discussed where the future of description logics will lie. There seems to be a consensus that description logics must forge tighter connections with other formalisms, such as databases or object-oriented systems. In this way, perhaps, description logics will find more real applications

International Workshop on Description Logics : Bonn, May 28/29, 1994

This collection of papers forms the permanent record of the 1994 Description Logic Workshop, that was held at the Gustav Stresemann Institut in Bonn, Germany on 28 and 29 May 1994, immediately after the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. The workshop was set up to be as informal as possible, so this collection cannot hope to capture the discussions associated with the workshop. However, we hope that it will serve to remind participants of their discussion at the workshop, and provide non-participants with indications of the topics that were discussed at the workshop. The workshop consisted of seven regular sessions and one panel session. Each regular session had about four short presentations on a single theme, but also had considerable time reserved for discussion. The themes of the sessions were Foundations of Description Logics, Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems, Language Extensions, Expanding Description Logics, General Applications of Description Logics, Natural Language Applications of Description Logics, Connections between Description Logics and Databases, and the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems. The session on Foundations of Description Logics concentrated on computational properties of description logics, correspondences between description logics and other formalisms, and on semantics of description logics, Similarly, there is discussion on how to develop tractable desription logics, for some notion of tractable, and whether it is useful to worry about achieving tractability at all. Several of the participants argued in favour of a very expressive description logic. This obviously precludes tractability or even decidability of complete reasoning. Klaus Schild proposed that for some purposes one could employ "model checking" (i .e., a closed world assumption) instead of "theorem proving," and has shown that this is still tractable for very large languages. Maurizio Lenzerini's opinion was that it is important to have decidable languages. Tractability cannot be achieved in several application areas because there one needs very expressive constructs: e.g., axioms, complex role constructors, and cycles with fixed-point semantics. For Bob MacGregor, not even decidability is an issue since he claims that Loom's incomplete reasoner is sufficient for his applications. The discussion addressed the question of whether there is still need for foundations, and whether the work on foundation done until now really solved the problems that the designers of early DL systems had. Both questions were mostly answered in the affirmative, with the caveat that new research on foundations should make sure that it is concerned with "real" problems, and not just generates new problems. In the session on Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems the participants considered different ways of putting together description logics and description logic systems. One way of doing this is to have a different kind of inference strategy for description logics, such as one based on intuitionistic logics or one based directly on rules of inference-thus allowing variant systems. Another way of modifying description logic systems is to divide them up in different ways, such as making a terminology consist of a schema portion and a view portion. Some discussion in this session concerned whether architectures should be influenced by application areas, or even by particular applications. There was considerable discussion at the workshop on how Description Logics should be extended or expanded to make them more useful. There are several methods to do this. The first is to extend the language of descriptions, e.g ., to represent n-ary relations, temporal information, or whole-part relationships, all of which were discussed at the workshop. The second is to add in another kind of reasoning, such as default reasoning, while still keeping the general framework of description logic reasoning. The third is to incorporate descriptions or description-like constructs in a larger reasoner, such as a first order reasoner. This was the approach taken in OMEGA and is the approach being taken in the Loom project. There have been many extensions of the first two kinds proposed for description logics, including several presented at the workshop. One quest ion discussed at the workshop was whether these extensions fit in well with the philosophy of description logic. Another question was whether the presence of many proposals for extensions means that description logics are easy to expand, or that description logics are inadequate representation formalisms? The general consensus was that description logics adequately capture a certain kind of core reasoning and that they lend themselves to incorporation with other kinds of reasoning. Care must be taken, however, to keep the extended versions true to the goals of description logics. The sessions on Applications of Description Logics had presentations on applications of description logics in various areas, including configuration, tutoring, natural language processing, and domain modeling. Most of these applications are research applications, funded by government research programs. There was discussion of what is needed to have more fielded applications of description logics. The session on Connections between Description Logics and Databases considered three kinds of connections between Description Logics and Databases: 1. using Description Logics for expressing database schemas, including local schemas, integrated schemas, and views, integrity constraints, and queries; 2. using Description Logic reasoning for various database-related reasoning, including schema integration and validation, and query optimization, and query validation and organization; and 3. making Description Logic reasoners more like Database Mangagement Systems via optimization. All three of these connections are being actively investigated by the description logic community. The panel session on the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems discussed where the future of description logics will lie. There seems to be a consensus that description logics must forge tighter connections with other formalisms, such as databases or object-oriented systems. In this way, perhaps, description logics will find more real applications

International Workshop on Description Logics : Bonn, May 28/29, 1994

This collection of papers forms the permanent record of the 1994 Description Logic Workshop, that was held at the Gustav Stresemann Institut in Bonn, Germany on 28 and 29 May 1994, immediately after the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. The workshop was set up to be as informal as possible, so this collection cannot hope to capture the discussions associated with the workshop. However, we hope that it will serve to remind participants of their discussion at the workshop, and provide non-participants with indications of the topics that were discussed at the workshop. The workshop consisted of seven regular sessions and one panel session. Each regular session had about four short presentations on a single theme, but also had considerable time reserved for discussion. The themes of the sessions were Foundations of Description Logics, Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems, Language Extensions, Expanding Description Logics, General Applications of Description Logics, Natural Language Applications of Description Logics, Connections between Description Logics and Databases, and the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems. The session on Foundations of Description Logics concentrated on computational properties of description logics, correspondences between description logics and other formalisms, and on semantics of description logics, Similarly, there is discussion on how to develop tractable desription logics, for some notion of tractable, and whether it is useful to worry about achieving tractability at all. Several of the participants argued in favour of a very expressive description logic. This obviously precludes tractability or even decidability of complete reasoning. Klaus Schild proposed that for some purposes one could employ "model checking" (i .e., a closed world assumption) instead of "theorem proving," and has shown that this is still tractable for very large languages. Maurizio Lenzerini's opinion was that it is important to have decidable languages. Tractability cannot be achieved in several application areas because there one needs very expressive constructs: e.g., axioms, complex role constructors, and cycles with fixed-point semantics. For Bob MacGregor, not even decidability is an issue since he claims that Loom's incomplete reasoner is sufficient for his applications. The discussion addressed the question of whether there is still need for foundations, and whether the work on foundation done until now really solved the problems that the designers of early DL systems had. Both questions were mostly answered in the affirmative, with the caveat that new research on foundations should make sure that it is concerned with "real" problems, and not just generates new problems. In the session on Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems the participants considered different ways of putting together description logics and description logic systems. One way of doing this is to have a different kind of inference strategy for description logics, such as one based on intuitionistic logics or one based directly on rules of inference-thus allowing variant systems. Another way of modifying description logic systems is to divide them up in different ways, such as making a terminology consist of a schema portion and a view portion. Some discussion in this session concerned whether architectures should be influenced by application areas, or even by particular applications. There was considerable discussion at the workshop on how Description Logics should be extended or expanded to make them more useful. There are several methods to do this. The first is to extend the language of descriptions, e.g ., to represent n-ary relations, temporal information, or whole-part relationships, all of which were discussed at the workshop. The second is to add in another kind of reasoning, such as default reasoning, while still keeping the general framework of description logic reasoning. The third is to incorporate descriptions or description-like constructs in a larger reasoner, such as a first order reasoner. This was the approach taken in OMEGA and is the approach being taken in the Loom project. There have been many extensions of the first two kinds proposed for description logics, including several presented at the workshop. One quest ion discussed at the workshop was whether these extensions fit in well with the philosophy of description logic. Another question was whether the presence of many proposals for extensions means that description logics are easy to expand, or that description logics are inadequate representation formalisms? The general consensus was that description logics adequately capture a certain kind of core reasoning and that they lend themselves to incorporation with other kinds of reasoning. Care must be taken, however, to keep the extended versions true to the goals of description logics. The sessions on Applications of Description Logics had presentations on applications of description logics in various areas, including configuration, tutoring, natural language processing, and domain modeling. Most of these applications are research applications, funded by government research programs. There was discussion of what is needed to have more fielded applications of description logics. The session on Connections between Description Logics and Databases considered three kinds of connections between Description Logics and Databases: 1. using Description Logics for expressing database schemas, including local schemas, integrated schemas, and views, integrity constraints, and queries; 2. using Description Logic reasoning for various database-related reasoning, including schema integration and validation, and query optimization, and query validation and organization; and 3. making Description Logic reasoners more like Database Mangagement Systems via optimization. All three of these connections are being actively investigated by the description logic community. The panel session on the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems discussed where the future of description logics will lie. There seems to be a consensus that description logics must forge tighter connections with other formalisms, such as databases or object-oriented systems. In this way, perhaps, description logics will find more real applications

The effect of collectivism on family meal consumption behaviour and its implications on food companies in Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone is a multi-cultural and multi-faceted society with people from diverse backgrounds, who espoused different cultural behaviours at mealtimes and in their business dealings. The significance of this study is that it highlights the differences and similarities inherent among the families and businesses in the Sierra Leonean collectivist context, and Africa generally, which has been neglected by many researchers in the past. This study is the first of its kind in the African continent as it provides an opportunity for governments and businesses to see not only the cultural richness of Sierra Leone, but to learn and understand how to develop and respond to food products produced, consumed and sold in such markets. The aim of this study is to critically review literature on collectivism and undertake data collection to evaluate the factors stakeholders perceived as influencing families’ meal social interaction behaviour in a Sierra Leonean context, and apply the results on food retailers and producers to assess how they affect their behaviour when marketing their products to consumers. This research adopted the constructionist approach as its epistemological perspective, which is reliably linked with the ‘lived experiences of families and businesses as it is considered an appropriate way for determining how humans make sense of their surroundings. In the first phase of the study, 20 different Sierra Leonean families (husband and wife), with a sample size of 40, were interviewed using observations and one-to-one semi-structured interviews, whilst in the second phase of the study, 20 businesses (16 food retailing and 4 food manufacturing companies) were interviewed using a semi-structured interview approach. The research was conducted in the four provincial headquarter towns of Bo, Freetown, Kenema and Makeni. The data was collected using snowballing, experiential and convenience sampling techniques. The researcher used qualitative research in explaining the behaviours of families and businesses. The data was analysed qualitatively using an inductive approach. The findings showed that a majority of Sierra Leonean families and businesses displayed collectivist behaviour when interacting socially and/or when marketing their food products to customers. The findings also showed that religion, ethnicity, conformity, reference groups and social class were the predominant determinants of the behaviours of a majority of families and businesses in Sierra Leone. In addition, the results of the findings implied that variation exists even between individuals of the same religion, between gender groups, and between food retailing and food producing companies, which affects the way they behave. The findings further revealed that there is a cultural divide between a majority of Muslims and Christians with regard the type of food considered appropriate for consumption at the dinner table, which equally affects the type of food products manufactured and sold by businesses. Despite this division, the findings showed that there are increased commonalities between a majority of the families and businesses as well as differences, which affects their behavioural patterns. The key contributions of this study are that it provides an extension of our knowledge in identifying new concepts of collectivism in the Sierra Leonean context that influences families and businesses’ behaviour, for example, family/customer’s food ethics; gender differentiation; tribal sentiment; preferential treatment; communication style; education; etc. The study also highlights the concept of interactionalism, which posits that religion, ethnicity, conformity, reference groups and social class interact with each other in the form of a web in influencing the behaviour of Sierra Leonean families and businesses. Another contribution of this study is its presentation of the factors affecting families and businesses’ behaviour in schematic diagrams