Optimization and inference under fuzzy numerical constraints

Εκτεταμένη έρευνα έχει γίνει στους τομείς της Ικανοποίησης Περιορισμών με διακριτά (ακέραια) ή πραγματικά πεδία τιμών. Αυτή η έρευνα έχει οδηγήσει σε πολλαπλές σημασιολογικές περιγραφές, πλατφόρμες και συστήματα για την περιγραφή σχετικών προβλημάτων με επαρκείς βελτιστοποιήσεις. Παρά ταύτα, λόγω της ασαφούς φύσης πραγματικών προβλημάτων ή ελλιπούς μας γνώσης για αυτά, η σαφής μοντελοποίηση ενός προβλήματος ικανοποίησης περιορισμών δεν είναι πάντα ένα εύκολο ζήτημα ή ακόμα και η καλύτερη προσέγγιση. Επιπλέον, το πρόβλημα της μοντελοποίησης και επίλυσης ελλιπούς γνώσης είναι ακόμη δυσκολότερο. Επιπροσθέτως, πρακτικές απαιτήσεις μοντελοποίησης και μέθοδοι βελτιστοποίησης του χρόνου αναζήτησης απαιτούν συνήθως ειδικές πληροφορίες για το πεδίο εφαρμογής, καθιστώντας τη δημιουργία ενός γενικότερου πλαισίου βελτιστοποίησης ένα ιδιαίτερα δύσκολο πρόβλημα. Στα πλαίσια αυτής της εργασίας θα μελετήσουμε το πρόβλημα της μοντελοποίησης και αξιοποίησης σαφών, ελλιπών ή ασαφών περιορισμών, καθώς και πιθανές στρατηγικές βελτιστοποίησης. Καθώς τα παραδοσιακά προβλήματα ικανοποίησης περιορισμών λειτουργούν βάσει συγκεκριμένων και προκαθορισμένων κανόνων και σχέσεων, παρουσιάζει ενδιαφέρον η διερεύνηση στρατηγικών και βελτιστοποιήσεων που θα επιτρέπουν το συμπερασμό νέων ή/και αποδοτικότερων περιορισμών. Τέτοιοι επιπρόσθετοι κανόνες θα μπορούσαν να βελτιώσουν τη διαδικασία αναζήτησης μέσω της εφαρμογής αυστηρότερων περιορισμών και περιορισμού του χώρου αναζήτησης ή να προσφέρουν χρήσιμες πληροφορίες στον αναλυτή για τη φύση του προβλήματος που μοντελοποιεί.Extensive research has been done in the areas of Constraint Satisfaction with discrete/integer and real domain ranges. Multiple platforms and systems to deal with these kinds of domains have been developed and appropriately optimized. Nevertheless, due to the incomplete and possibly vague nature of real-life problems, modeling a crisp and adequately strict satisfaction problem may not always be easy or even appropriate. The problem of modeling incomplete knowledge or solving an incomplete/relaxed representation of a problem is a much harder issue to tackle. Additionally, practical modeling requirements and search optimizations require specific domain knowledge in order to be implemented, making the creation of a more generic optimization framework an even harder problem.In this thesis, we will study the problem of modeling and utilizing incomplete and fuzzy constraints, as well as possible optimization strategies. As constraint satisfaction problems usually contain hard-coded constraints based on specific problem and domain knowledge, we will investigate whether strategies and generic heuristics exist for inferring new constraint rules. Additional rules could optimize the search process by implementing stricter constraints and thus pruning the search space or even provide useful insight to the researcher concerning the nature of the investigated problem

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

Evaluating the Impact of Defeasible Argumentation as a Modelling Technique for Reasoning under Uncertainty

Limited work exists for the comparison across distinct knowledge-based approaches in Artificial Intelligence (AI) for non-monotonic reasoning, and in particular for the examination of their inferential and explanatory capacity. Non-monotonicity, or defeasibility, allows the retraction of a conclusion in the light of new information. It is a similar pattern to human reasoning, which draws conclusions in the absence of information, but allows them to be corrected once new pieces of evidence arise. Thus, this thesis focuses on a comparison of three approaches in AI for implementation of non-monotonic reasoning models of inference, namely: expert systems, fuzzy reasoning and defeasible argumentation. Three applications from the fields of decision-making in healthcare and knowledge representation and reasoning were selected from real-world contexts for evaluation: human mental workload modelling, computational trust modelling, and mortality occurrence modelling with biomarkers. The link between these applications comes from their presumptively non-monotonic nature. They present incomplete, ambiguous and retractable pieces of evidence. Hence, reasoning applied to them is likely suitable for being modelled by non-monotonic reasoning systems. An experiment was performed by exploiting six deductive knowledge bases produced with the aid of domain experts. These were coded into models built upon the selected reasoning approaches and were subsequently elicited with real-world data. The numerical inferences produced by these models were analysed according to common metrics of evaluation for each field of application. For the examination of explanatory capacity, properties such as understandability, extensibility, and post-hoc interpretability were meticulously described and qualitatively compared. Findings suggest that the variance of the inferences produced by expert systems and fuzzy reasoning models was higher, highlighting poor stability. In contrast, the variance of argument-based models was lower, showing a superior stability of its inferences across different system configurations. In addition, when compared in a context with large amounts of conflicting information, defeasible argumentation exhibited a stronger potential for conflict resolution, while presenting robust inferences. An in-depth discussion of the explanatory capacity showed how defeasible argumentation can lead to the construction of non-monotonic models with appealing properties of explainability, compared to those built with expert systems and fuzzy reasoning. The originality of this research lies in the quantification of the impact of defeasible argumentation. It illustrates the construction of an extensive number of non-monotonic reasoning models through a modular design. In addition, it exemplifies how these models can be exploited for performing non-monotonic reasoning and producing quantitative inferences in real-world applications. It contributes to the field of non-monotonic reasoning by situating defeasible argumentation among similar approaches through a novel empirical comparison

Cogitator : a parallel, fuzzy, database-driven expert system

The quest to build anthropomorphic machines has led researchers to focus on knowledge and the manipulation thereof. Recently, the expert system was proposed as a solution, working well in small, well understood domains. However these initial attempts highlighted the tedious process associated with building systems to display intelligence, the most notable being the Knowledge Acquisition Bottleneck. Attempts to circumvent this problem have led researchers to propose the use of machine learning databases as a source of knowledge. Attempts to utilise databases as sources of knowledge has led to the development Database-Driven Expert Systems. Furthermore, it has been ascertained that a requisite for intelligent systems is powerful computation. In response to these problems and proposals, a new type of database-driven expert system, Cogitator is proposed. It is shown to circumvent the Knowledge Acquisition Bottleneck and posess many other advantages over both traditional expert systems and connectionist systems, whilst having non-serious disadvantages.KMBT_22

Labeled bipolar argumentation frameworks

An essential part of argumentation-based reasoning is to identify arguments in favor and against a statement or query, select the acceptable ones, and then determine whether or not the original statement should be accepted. We present here an abstract framework that considers two independent forms of argument interaction-support and conflict-and is able to represent distinctive information associated with these arguments. This information can enable additional actions such as: (i) a more in-depth analysis of the relations between the arguments; (ii) a representation of the user's posture to help in focusing the argumentative process, optimizing the values of attributes associated with certain arguments; and (iii) an enhancement of the semantics taking advantage of the availability of richer information about argument acceptability. Thus, the classical semantic definitions are enhanced by analyzing a set of postulates they satisfy. Finally, a polynomial-time algorithm to perform the labeling process is introduced, in which the argument interactions are considered.Fil: Escañuela Gonzalez, Melisa Gisselle. Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán; ArgentinaFil: Budan, Maximiliano Celmo David. Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán; ArgentinaFil: Simari, Gerardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Simari, Guillermo Ricardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentin

DUALITIES AND REPRESENTATIONS FOR MANY-VALUED LOGICS IN THE HIERARCHY OF WEAK NILPOTENT MINIMUM.

In this thesis we study particular subclasses of WNM algebras. The variety of WNM algebras forms the algebraic semantics of the WNM logic, a propositional many-valued logic that generalizes some well-known case in the setting of triangular norms logics. WNM logic lies in the hierarchy of schematic extensions of MTL, which is proven to be the logic of all left-continuous triangular norms and their residua. In this work, I have extensively studied two extensions of WNM logic, namely RDP logic and NMG logic, from the point of view of algebraic and categorical logic. We develop spectral dualities between the varieties of algebras corresponding to RDP logic and NMG logic, and suitable defined combinatorial categories. Categorical dualities allow to give algorithmic construction of products in the dual categories obtaining computable descriptions of coproducts (which are notoriously hard to compute working only in the algebraic side) for the corresponding finite algebras. As a byproduct, representation theorems for finite algebras and free finitely generated algebras in the considered varieties are obtained. This latter characterization is especially useful to provide explicit construction of a number of objects relevant from the point of view of the logical interpretation of the varieties of algebras: normal forms, strongest deductive interpolants and most general unifiers