1,051 research outputs found

    Programming Cognitive Agents in Defeasible Logic

    Get PDF
    Defeasible Logic is extended to programming languages for cognitive agents with preferences and actions for planning. We define rule-based agent theories that contain preferences and actions, together with inference procedures. We discuss patterns of agent types in this setting. Finally, we illustrate the language by an example of an agent reasoning about web-services

    Preferences of Agents in Defeasible Logic

    Get PDF
    We are interested in programming languages for cognitive agents with preferences. We define rule-based agent theories and inference procedures in defeasible logic, and in this setting we discuss patterns of agent behavior called agent types

    Defeasible Logic Programming: An Argumentative Approach

    Full text link
    The work reported here introduces Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP), a formalism that combines results of Logic Programming and Defeasible Argumentation. DeLP provides the possibility of representing information in the form of weak rules in a declarative manner, and a defeasible argumentation inference mechanism for warranting the entailed conclusions. In DeLP an argumentation formalism will be used for deciding between contradictory goals. Queries will be supported by arguments that could be defeated by other arguments. A query q will succeed when there is an argument A for q that is warranted, ie, the argument A that supports q is found undefeated by a warrant procedure that implements a dialectical analysis. The defeasible argumentation basis of DeLP allows to build applications that deal with incomplete and contradictory information in dynamic domains. Thus, the resulting approach is suitable for representing agent's knowledge and for providing an argumentation based reasoning mechanism to agents.Comment: 43 pages, to appear in the journal "Theory and Practice of Logic Programming

    An argumentative formalism for implementing rational agents

    Get PDF
    The design of intelligent agents is a key issue for many applications. Although there is no universally accepted de nition of intelligence, a notion of rational agency has been proposed as an alternative for the characterization of intelligent agency. Modeling the epistemic state of a rational agent is one of the most di cult tasks to be addressed in the design process, and its complexity is directly related to the formalism used for representing the knowledge of the agent. This paper presents the main features of Observation-based Defeasible Logic Programming (ODeLP), a formalism tailored for agents that perform defeasible reasoning in dynamic domains. Most agents must have a timely interaction with their environment. Since the cognitive process of rational agents is complex and computationally expensive, this interaction is particularly hard to achieve. To solve this issue, we propose an optimization of the inference process in ODeLP based on the use of precompiled knowledge. This optimization can be e ciently implemented using concepts from pattern matching algorithms.Eje: Sistemas inteligentesRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

    Interaction between Normative Systems and Cognitive Agents in Temporal Modal Defeasible Logic

    Get PDF
    While some recent frameworks on cognitive agents addressed the combination of mental attitudes with deontic concepts, they commonly ignore the representation of time. An exception is [1]that manages also some temporal aspects both with respect to cognition and normative provisions. We propose in this paper an extension of the logic presented in [1]with temporal intervals

    A Parameterised Hierarchy of Argumentation Semantics for Extended Logic Programming and its Application to the Well-founded Semantics

    Full text link
    Argumentation has proved a useful tool in defining formal semantics for assumption-based reasoning by viewing a proof as a process in which proponents and opponents attack each others arguments by undercuts (attack to an argument's premise) and rebuts (attack to an argument's conclusion). In this paper, we formulate a variety of notions of attack for extended logic programs from combinations of undercuts and rebuts and define a general hierarchy of argumentation semantics parameterised by the notions of attack chosen by proponent and opponent. We prove the equivalence and subset relationships between the semantics and examine some essential properties concerning consistency and the coherence principle, which relates default negation and explicit negation. Most significantly, we place existing semantics put forward in the literature in our hierarchy and identify a particular argumentation semantics for which we prove equivalence to the paraconsistent well-founded semantics with explicit negation, WFSXp_p. Finally, we present a general proof theory, based on dialogue trees, and show that it is sound and complete with respect to the argumentation semantics.Comment: To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programmin

    Improving argumentation-based recommender systems through context-adaptable selection criteria

    Get PDF
    Recommender Systems based on argumentation represent an important proposal where the recommendation is supported by qualitative information. In these systems, the role of the comparison criterion used to decide between competing arguments is paramount and the possibility of using the most appropriate for a given domain becomes a central issue; therefore, an argumentative recommender system that offers an interchangeable argument comparison criterion provides a significant ability that can be exploited by the user. However, in most of current recommender systems, the argument comparison criterion is either fixed, or codified within the arguments. In this work we propose a formalization of context-adaptable selection criteria that enhances the argumentative reasoning mechanism. Thus, we do not propose of a new type of recommender system; instead we present a mechanism that expand the capabilities of existing argumentation-based recommender systems. More precisely, our proposal is to provide a way of specifying how to select and use the most appropriate argument comparison criterion effecting the selection on the user´s preferences, giving the possibility of programming, by the use of conditional expressions, which argument preference criterion has to be used in each particular situation.Fil: Teze, Juan Carlos Lionel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Entre Ríos; ArgentinaFil: Gottifredi, Sebastián. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: García, Alejandro Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Simari, Guillermo Ricardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentin

    A System for Modal and Deontic Defeasible Reasoning

    Get PDF
    Defeasible reasoning is a well-established nonmonotonic reasoning approach that has recently been combined with semantic web technologies. This paper describes modal and deontic extensions of defeasible logic, motivated by potential applications for modelling multi-agent systems and policies. It describes a logic metaprogram that captures the underlying intuitions, and outlines an implemented system
    corecore