Planning with Incomplete Information

Planning is a natural domain of application for frameworks of reasoning about actions and change. In this paper we study how one such framework, the Language E, can form the basis for planning under (possibly) incomplete information. We define two types of plans: weak and safe plans, and propose a planner, called the E-Planner, which is often able to extend an initial weak plan into a safe plan even though the (explicit) information available is incomplete, e.g. for cases where the initial state is not completely known. The E-Planner is based upon a reformulation of the Language E in argumentation terms and a natural proof theory resulting from the reformulation. It uses an extension of this proof theory by means of abduction for the generation of plans and adopts argumentation-based techniques for extending weak plans into safe plans. We provide representative examples illustrating the behaviour of the E-Planner, in particular for cases where the status of fluents is incompletely known.Comment: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, April 9-11, 2000, Breckenridge, Colorad

Reasoning about Temporal Context using Ontology and Abductive Constraint Logic Programming

The underlying assumptions for interpreting the meaning of data often change over time, which further complicates the problem of semantic heterogeneities among autonomous data sources. As an extension to the COntext INterchange (COIN) framework, this paper introduces the notion of temporal context as a formalization of the problem. We represent temporal context as a multi-valued method in F-Logic; however, only one value is valid at any point in time, the determination of which is constrained by temporal relations. This representation is then mapped to an abductive constraint logic programming framework with temporal relations being treated as constraints. A mediation engine that implements the framework automatically detects and reconciles semantic differences at different times. We articulate that this extended COIN framework is suitable for reasoning on the Semantic Web.Singapore-MIT Alliance (SMA

On Argumentation Logic and Propositional Logic

This paper studies the relationship between Argumentation Logic (AL), a recently defined logic based on the study of argumentation in AI, and classical Propositional Logic (PL). In particular, it shows that AL and PL are logically equivalent in that they have the same entailment relation from any given classically consistent theory. This equivalence follows from a correspondence between the non-acceptability of (arguments for) sentences in AL and Natural Deduction (ND) proofs of the complement of these sentences. The proof of this equivalence uses a restricted form of ND proofs, where hypotheses in the application of the Reductio of Absurdum inference rule are required to be “relevant” to the absurdity derived in the rule. The paper also discusses how the argumentative re-interpretation of PL could help control the application of ex-falso quodlibet in the presence of inconsistencies