Introducing Preference-Based Argumentation to Inconsistent Ontological Knowledge Bases

International audienceHandling inconsistency is an inherent part of decision making in traditional agri-food chains – due to the various concerns involved. In order to explain the source of inconsistency and represent the existing conflicts in the ontological knowledge base, argumentation theory can be used. However, the current state of art methodology does not allow to take into account the level of significance of the knowledge expressed by the various ontological knowledge sources. We propose to use preferences in order to model those differences between formulas and evaluate our proposal practically by implementing it within the INRA platform and showing a use case using this formalism in a bread making decision support system

A defeasible reasoning web service

In this article we outline a research line whose main goal is to give access to the software agents inhabiting the Web to a powerful inference service built around Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP), a formalism that combines features of Logic Programming with Defeasible Argumentation. To do so, the web service prototype we proposed is the next logical step to take in order to allow agents to draw conclusions through DeLP within the Semantic Web.Eje: Agentes y Sistemas InteligentesRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Defeasible Logic Programming: An Argumentative Approach

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

Parameterized aspects of team-based formalisms and logical inference

Parameterized complexity is an interesting subfield of complexity theory that has received a lot of attention in recent years. Such an analysis characterizes the complexity of (classically) intractable problems by pinpointing the computational hardness to some structural aspects of the input. In this thesis, we study the parameterized complexity of various problems from the area of team-based formalisms as well as logical inference. In the context of team-based formalism, we consider propositional dependence logic (PDL). The problems of interest are model checking (MC) and satisfiability (SAT). Peter Lohmann studied the classical complexity of these problems as a part of his Ph.D. thesis proving that both MC and SAT are NP-complete for PDL. This thesis addresses the parameterized complexity of these problems with respect to a wealth of different parameterizations. Interestingly, SAT for PDL boils down to the satisfiability of propositional logic as implied by the downwards closure of PDL-formulas. We propose an interesting satisfiability variant (mSAT) asking for a satisfiable team of size m. The problem mSAT restores the ‘team semantic’ nature of satisfiability for PDL-formulas. We propose another problem (MaxSubTeam) asking for a maximal satisfiable team if a given team does not satisfy the input formula. From the area of logical inference, we consider (logic-based) abduction and argumentation. The problem of interest in abduction (ABD) is to determine whether there is an explanation for a manifestation in a knowledge base (KB). Following Pfandler et al., we also consider two of its variants by imposing additional restrictions over the size of an explanation (ABD and ABD=). In argumentation, our focus is on the argument existence (ARG), relevance (ARG-Rel) and verification (ARG-Check) problems. The complexity of these problems have been explored already in the classical setting, and each of them is known to be complete for the second level of the polynomial hierarchy (except for ARG-Check which is DP-complete) for propositional logic. Moreover, the work by Nord and Zanuttini (resp., Creignou et al.) explores the complexity of these problems with respect to various restrictions over allowed KBs for ABD (ARG). In this thesis, we explore a two-dimensional complexity analysis for these problems. The first dimension is the restrictions over KB in Schaefer’s framework (the same direction as Nord and Zanuttini and Creignou et al.). What differentiates the work in this thesis from an existing research on these problems is that we add another dimension, the parameterization. The results obtained in this thesis are interesting for two reasons. First (from a theoretical point of view), ideas used in our reductions can help in developing further reductions and prove (in)tractability results for related problems. Second (from a practical point of view), the obtained tractability results might help an agent designing an instance of a problem come up with the one for which the problem is tractable

Proceedings of the IJCAI-09 Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Action and Change

Copyright in each article is held by the authors. Please contact the authors directly for permission to reprint or use this material in any form for any purpose.The biennial workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Action and Change (NRAC) has an active and loyal community. Since its inception in 1995, the workshop has been held seven times in conjunction with IJCAI, and has experienced growing success. We hope to build on this success again this eighth year with an interesting and fruitful day of discussion. The areas of reasoning about action, non-monotonic reasoning and belief revision are among the most active research areas in Knowledge Representation, with rich inter-connections and practical applications including robotics, agentsystems, commonsense reasoning and the semantic web. This workshop provides a unique opportunity for researchers from all three fields to be brought together at a single forum with the prime objectives of communicating important recent advances in each field and the exchange of ideas. As these fundamental areas mature it is vital that researchers maintain a dialog through which they can cooperatively explore common links. The goal of this workshop is to work against the natural tendency of such rapidly advancing fields to drift apart into isolated islands of specialization. This year, we have accepted ten papers authored by a diverse international community. Each paper has been subject to careful peer review on the basis of innovation, significance and relevance to NRAC. The high quality selection of work could not have been achieved without the invaluable help of the international Program Committee. A highlight of the workshop will be our invited speaker Professor Hector Geffner from ICREA and UPF in Barcelona, Spain, discussing representation and inference in modern planning. Hector Geffner is a world leader in planning, reasoning, and knowledge representation; in addition to his many important publications, he is a Fellow of the AAAI, an associate editor of the Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research and won an ACM Distinguished Dissertation Award in 1990

Answers that Have Integrity

[EN] Answers to queries in possibly inconsistent databases may not have integrity. We formalize ‘has integrity’ on the basis of a definition of ‘causes’. A cause of an answer is a minimal excerpt of the database that explains why the answer has been given. An answer has integrity if one of its causes does not overlap with any cause of integrity violation.Supported by FEDER and the Spanish grants TIN2009-14460-C03, TIN2010-17139.Decker, H. (2011). Answers that Have Integrity. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 6834:54-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23441-5S5472683