Doppler Shift Human Detection Using a Microphone Array

From the Washington University Office of Undergraduate Research Digest (WUURD), Vol. 12, 05-01-2017. Published by the Office of Undergraduate Research. Joy Zalis Kiefer, Director of Undergraduate Research and Associate Dean in the College of Arts & Sciences; Lindsey Paunovich, Editor; Helen Human, Programs Manager and Assistant Dean in the College of Arts and Sciences Mentor: Arye Nehora

Embedding Defeasible Logic into Logic Programming

Defeasible reasoning is a simple but efficient approach to nonmonotonic reasoning that has recently attracted considerable interest and that has found various applications. Defeasible logic and its variants are an important family of defeasible reasoning methods. So far no relationship has been established between defeasible logic and mainstream nonmonotonic reasoning approaches. In this paper we establish close links to known semantics of logic programs. In particular, we give a translation of a defeasible theory D into a meta-program P(D). We show that under a condition of decisiveness, the defeasible consequences of D correspond exactly to the sceptical conclusions of P(D) under the stable model semantics. Without decisiveness, the result holds only in one direction (all defeasible consequences of D are included in all stable models of P(D)). If we wish a complete embedding for the general case, we need to use the Kunen semantics of P(D), instead.Comment: To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programmin

A flexible framework for defeasible logics

Logics for knowledge representation suffer from over-specialization: while each logic may provide an ideal representation formalism for some problems, it is less than optimal for others. A solution to this problem is to choose from several logics and, when necessary, combine the representations. In general, such an approach results in a very difficult problem of combination. However, if we can choose the logics from a uniform framework then the problem of combining them is greatly simplified. In this paper, we develop such a framework for defeasible logics. It supports all defeasible logics that satisfy a strong negation principle. We use logic meta-programs as the basis for the framework.Comment: Proceedings of 8th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, April 9-11, 2000, Breckenridge, Colorad

Trades in complex Hadamard matrices

A trade in a complex Hadamard matrix is a set of entries which can be changed to obtain a different complex Hadamard matrix. We show that in a real Hadamard matrix of order $n$ all trades contain at least $n$ entries. We call a trade rectangular if it consists of a submatrix that can be multiplied by some scalar $c \neq 1$ to obtain another complex Hadamard matrix. We give a characterisation of rectangular trades in complex Hadamard matrices of order $n$ and show that they all contain at least $n$ entries. We conjecture that all trades in complex Hadamard matrices contain at least $n$ entries.Comment: 9 pages, no figure

Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logics

Defeasible logic is a simple but efficient rule-based non-monotonic logic. It has powerful implementations and shows promise to be applied in the areas of legal reasoning and the modelling of business rules. So far defeasible logic has been defined only proof-theoretically. Argumentation-based semantics have become popular in the area of logic programming. In this paper we give an argumentation-based semantics for defeasible logic. Recently it has been shown that a family of approaches can be built around defeasible logic, in which different intuitions can be followed. In this paper we present an argumentation-based semantics for an ambiguity propagating logic, too. Further defeasible logics can be characterised in a similar way

Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logics

Defeasible reasoning is a simple but efficient rule-based approach to nonmonotonic reasoning. It has powerful implementations and shows promise to be applied in the areas of legal reasoning and the modeling of business rules. This paper establishes significant links between defeasible reasoning and argumentation. In particular, Dung-like argumentation semantics is provided for two key defeasible logics, of which one is ambiguity propagating and the other ambiguity blocking. There are several reasons for the significance of this work: (a) establishing links between formal systems leads to a better understanding and cross-fertilization, in particular our work sheds light on the argumentation-theoretic features of defeasible logic; (b) we provide the first ambiguity blocking Dung-like argumentation system; (c) defeasible reasoning may provide an efficient implementation platform for systems of argumentation; and (d) argumentation-based semantics support a deeper understanding of defeasible reasoning, especially in the context of the intended applications

A comparison of sceptical NAF-free logic programming approaches

Recently there has been increased interest in logic programming-based default reasoning approaches which are not using negation-as-failure in their object language. Instead, default reasoning is modelled by rules and a priority relation among them. Historically the first logic in this class was Defeasible Logic. In this paper we will study its relationship to other approaches which also rely on the idea of using logic rules and priorities. In particular we will study sceptical LPwNF, courteous logic programs, and priority logic

On the Modeling and Analysis of Regulations

Regulations are a wide-spread and important part of government and business. They codify how products must be made and processes should be performed. Such regulations can be difficult to understand and apply. In an environment of growing complexity of, and change in, regulation, automated support for reasoning with regulations is becoming increasingly necessary. In this paper we report on ongoing work which aims at providing automated support for the drafting and use of regulations using logic modelling techniques. We highlight the support that can be provided by logic modelling, describe the technical foundation of our project, and report on the status of the project and the next steps

A Family of Defeasible Reasoning Logics and its Implementation

Defeasible reasoning is a direction in nonmonotonic reasoning that is based on the use of rules that may be defeated by other rules. It is a simple, but often more efficient approach than other nonmonotonic reasoning systems. This paper presents a family of defeasible reasoning formalisms built around Nute's defeasible logic. We describe the motivations of these formalisms and derive some basic properties and interrelationships. We also describe a query answering system that supports these formalisms and is available on the World Wide Web