Belief dynamics and defeasible argumentation in rational agents M. A. Falappa - A. J. García G. R. Simari Artificial Intelligence Research and Development.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Artificial Intelligence
Advertisements

Computational Models for Argumentation in MAS
The Logic of Intelligence Pei Wang Department of Computer and Information Sciences Temple University.
1 Inductive Equivalence of Logic Programs Chiaki Sakama Wakayama University Katsumi Inoue National Institute of Informatics ILP
Coordination between Logical Agents Chiaki Sakama Wakayama University Katsumi Inoue National Institute of Informatics CLIMA-V September 2004.
Commonsense Reasoning and Argumentation 14/15 HC 10: Structured argumentation (3) Henry Prakken 16 March 2015.
1 DCP 1172 Introduction to Artificial Intelligence Chang-Sheng Chen Topics Covered: Introduction to Nonmonotonic Logic.
Argumentation Logics Lecture 5: Argumentation with structured arguments (1) argument structure Henry Prakken Chongqing June 2, 2010.
Answer Set Programming Overview Dr. Rogelio Dávila Pérez Profesor-Investigador División de Posgrado Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara
Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II Michael Maher.
Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.
Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence Henry Prakken Lissabon, Portugal December 11, 2009.
Knowledge Representation and Reasoning University "Politehnica" of Bucharest Department of Computer Science Fall 2010 Adina Magda Florea
A Probabilistic Framework for Information Integration and Retrieval on the Semantic Web by Livia Predoiu, Heiner Stuckenschmidt Institute of Computer Science,
João Alcântara, Carlos Damásio and Luís Moniz Pereira Centro de Inteligência Artificial (CENTRIA) Depto. Informática,
Default and Cooperative Reasoning in Multi-Agent Systems Chiaki Sakama Wakayama University, Japan Programming Multi-Agent Systems based on Logic Dagstuhl.
Models -1 Scientists often describe what they do as constructing models. Understanding scientific reasoning requires understanding something about models.
Department of Computer Science© G.M.P O'Hare University College Dublin DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE COMP 4.19Multi-Agent Systems(MAS) Lectures 19&20.
Proof System HY-566. Proof layer Next layer of SW is logic and proof layers. – allow the user to state any logical principles, – computer can to infer.
Reductio ad Absurdum Argumentation in Normal Logic Programs Luís Moniz Pereira and Alexandre Miguel Pinto CENTRIA – Centro de Inteligência Artificial,
Scientific Thinking - 1 A. It is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. B. A hypothesis is scientific.
ASP vs. Prolog like programming ASP is adequate for: –NP-complete problems –situation where the whole program is relevant for the problem at hands èIf.
Argumentation Logics Lecture 7: Argumentation with structured arguments (3) Henry Prakken Chongqing June 4, 2010.
Adaptive Reasoning for Cooperative Agents Luís Moniz Pereira Alexandre Pinto Centre for Artificial Intelligence – CENTRIA Universidade Nova de Lisboa INAP’09,
Argumentation Logics Lecture 6: Argumentation with structured arguments (2) Attack, defeat, preferences Henry Prakken Chongqing June 3, 2010.
Improving Recovery for Belief Bases Frances L. Johnson & Stuart C. Shapiro Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Center for Multisource.
Argumentation Logics Lecture 5: Argumentation with structured arguments (1) argument structure Henry Prakken Chongqing June 2, 2010.
Intro to AI Fall 2002 © L. Joskowicz 1 Introduction to Artificial Intelligence LECTURE 11: Nonmonotonic Reasoning Motivation: beyond FOL + resolution Closed-world.
Belief Revision Lecture 1: AGM April 1, 2004 Gregory Wheeler
Knowledge Representation and Reasoning University "Politehnica" of Bucharest Department of Computer Science Fall 2010 Adina Magda Florea
Notes for Chapter 12 Logic Programming The AI War Basic Concepts of Logic Programming Prolog Review questions.
Defeasible Security Policy Composition for Web Services Adam J. Lee, Jodie P. Boyer *, Lars E. Olson, and Carl A. Gunter University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Applying Belief Change to Ontology Evolution PhD Student Computer Science Department University of Crete Giorgos Flouris Research Assistant.
Learning by Answer Sets Chiaki Sakama Wakayama University, Japan Presented at AAAI Spring Symposium on Answer Set Programming, March 2001.
Understanding PML Paulo Pinheiro da Silva. PML PML is a provenance language (a language used to encode provenance knowledge) that has been proudly derived.
Basics of Probability. A Bit Math A Probability Space is a triple, where  is the sample space: a non-empty set of possible outcomes; F is an algebra.
Combining Answer Sets of Nonmonotonic Logic Programs Chiaki Sakama Wakayama University Katsumi Inoue National Institute of Informatics.
Fall 98 Introduction to Artificial Intelligence LECTURE 7: Knowledge Representation and Logic Motivation Knowledge bases and inferences Logic as a representation.
Steffen Staab Advanced Data Modeling 1 of 32 WeST Häufungspunkte Bifurkation: x n+1 = r x n (1-x n ) Startwert x 0 = 0,25.
Actions Planning and Defeasible Reasoning Guillermo R. Simari Alejandro J. García Marcela Capobianco Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering U NIVERSIDAD.
1 Grammar Extraction and Refinement from an HPSG Corpus Kiril Simov BulTreeBank Project ( Linguistic Modeling Laboratory, Bulgarian.
A Mathematical Comment on the Fundamental Difference Between Scientific Theory Formation and Legal Theory Formation Ronald P. Loui St. Louis USA.
The AI War LISP and Prolog Basic Concepts of Logic Programming
Natural Deduction System for First Order Logic Student: Wei Lei Instructor: W. M. Farmer Department of Computing and Software McMaster University, Hamilton,
Acknowledgements This project would not have been possible without the gracious help of the McNair Scholars Program. The authors of this project thank.
©Agent Technology, 2008, Ai Lab NJU Agent Technology Agent model and theory.
KR A Principled Framework for Modular Web Rule Bases and its Semantics Anastasia Analyti Institute of Computer Science, FORTH-ICS, Greece Grigoris.
NMR98 - Logic Programming1 Learning with Extended Logic Programs Evelina Lamma (1), Fabrizio Riguzzi (1), Luís Moniz Pereira (2) (1)DEIS, University of.
Inverse Entailment in Nonmonotonic Logic Programs Chiaki Sakama Wakayama University, Japan.
International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, p.p ,July 2011.
On the Semantics of Argumentation 1 Antonis Kakas Francesca Toni Paolo Mancarella Department of Computer Science Department of Computing University of.
Abduction CIS308 Dr Harry Erwin. Contents Definition of abduction An abductive learning method Recommended reading.
The International RuleML Symposium on Rule Interchange and Applications Visualization of Proofs in Defeasible Logic Ioannis Avguleas 1, Katerina Gkirtzou.
An argument-based framework to model an agent's beliefs in a dynamic environment Marcela Capobianco Carlos I. Chesñevar Guillermo R. Simari Dept. of Computer.
From NARS to a Thinking Machine Pei Wang Temple University.
Knowledge Representation and Reasoning University "Politehnica" of Bucharest Department of Computer Science Fall 2011 Adina Magda Florea Master of Science.
Explaining and Controlling Reasoning Dr Nicholas Gibbins 32/3077.
Artificial Intelligence Logical Agents Chapter 7.
October 19th, 2007L. M. Pereira and A. M. Pinto1 Approved Models for Normal Logic Programs Luís Moniz Pereira and Alexandre Miguel Pinto Centre for Artificial.
Chapter 7. Propositional and Predicate Logic
Knowledge Representation and Reasoning
CS 9633 Machine Learning Concept Learning
Introduction to Prolog
Rules, RIF and RuleML.
Reasoning with Uncertainty
Henry Prakken COMMA 2016 Berlin-Potsdam September 15th, 2016
Back to “Serious” Topics…
Principles of Argument
Reasoning with Uncertainty Piyush Porwal ( ) Rohit Jhunjhunwala ( ) Srivatsa R. ( ) Under the guidance of Prof. Pushpak Bhattacharyya.
Chapter 7. Propositional and Predicate Logic
Presentation transcript:

Belief dynamics and defeasible argumentation in rational agents M. A. Falappa - A. J. García G. R. Simari Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Laboratory Department of Computer Science and Engineering Universidad Nacional del Sur - Argentina

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning2 Motivation Use a kind of non-prioritized revision on defeasible logic programming (DeLP). Apply this kind of operator on the beliefs of an BDI agent.

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning3 Knowledge representation The knowledge of an agent will be represented by a defeasible logic program  =( ,  ).  is a set of facts and strict rules. –Facts are ground literals that could be negated by the use of strong negation “  ”. –Strict rules are denoted as: L 0  L 1, L 2, …, L n where L i are ground literals.  is a set of defeasible rules denoted as: L 0  L 1, L 2, …, L n

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning4 Defeasible rules A defeasible rule is denoted as: L 0  L 1, L 2,…, L n L 0 is a ground literal called the head and L 1, …, L n are ground literals that form the body of the rule. This kind of rule is used to represent tentative information: “Reasons to believe in L 1, L 2,…, L n are reasons to believe in L 0 ” Example:  good_weather(today)  low_pressure(today), high(humidity)

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning5 Deafeasible Logic Program bird(X)  chicken(X) chicken(tina) bird(X)  penguin(X) penguin(opus)  flies(X)  penguin(X) scared(tina) flies(X)  bird(X)  flies(X)  chicken(X) flies(X)  chicken(X), scared(X) Strict Rules Facts Defeasible Rules  

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning6 Defeasible Argumentation Definition: Let L be a literal and   ( ,  ) be a program.  , L  is an argument for L, if  is a set of rules in  such that: 1)There exists a defeasible derivation from   that supports L. 2)The set    is non contradictory; 3)  is minimal, that is, there is no proper subset  of  such that  satisfies 1) and 2).

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning7 Arguments: some examples From: file_for_printing high_quality  use(inkjet)  use(laser)  use(laser)  use(inkjet) use(inkjet)  file_for_printing use(laser)  file_for_printing, high_quality Possible arguments:  , use(inkjet)  where:  = { use(inkjet)  file_for_printing }  ,  use(inkjet)  where:  = { use(laser)  file_for_printing, high_quality }

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning8 Defeasible Argumentation in DeLP Counterargument of  , L  : is an argument  , L  that “contradicts”  , L . Defeater of  , L  : is an counterargument of  , L  “better” than it. Dialectical tree: a tree of arguments with  , L  as root where each node is a defeater for its parent node. Warranted Literal L : there exists an argument  , L  such that its dialectical tree has its root undefeated.

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning9 C3C3 B2B2 B1B1 Marked Dialectical Tree and pruning A0A0 h0h0 B3B3 B4B4 C2C2 C1C1 C4C4 D3D3 U D D D U U U U D D U: Undefeated D: Defeated

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning10 Belief Revision Which is the motivation of belief revision? To model the dynamic of knowledge How can we do that? Classical Logic + Selection Mechanism _________________________________________ Non-classical Logic

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning11 Belief Bases There are two kinds of beliefs: Explicit Beliefs: all the sentences in the belief base. Implicit Beliefs: all sentences derived from the belief base. The implicit beliefs are “explained” from more basic beliefs.

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning12 Explanations An explanans justifies an explanandum. Set of sentences A sentence Properties [FKS02]: Deduction: A  . Consistency: It is not the case that A  . Minimality: There is no set A  A such that A  . Informational Content: It is not the case that   A.

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning13 Informational Content This postulate avoids the following cases: Self-explanation: {  } be an explanation of  Redundancy: {   ,     } be an explanation of 

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning14 We will define operators for revision with respect to an explanans (a set of sentences). The idea is the following: –Instead of incorporating a sentence , call for an explanans A for . –Add A to . –Eliminate all posible inconsistencies from the result. Revision by a set of sentences

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning15 Revision by a set of sentences  A Explanans for    A  A (   A)  Possibly inconsistent state  could not be accepted

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning16 Main ways of contraction Partial meet mode [AGM85]: Let  be a set of sentences and  be a sentence. Find all maximally subsets of  failing to imply  (  -remainders), noted as   . Select the “best”  -remainders by a selection function . Intersect them.

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning17 Main ways of contraction Kernel mode [Hansson94]: Let  be a set of sentences and  be a sentence. Find all minimally subsets of  implying  (  -kernels), noted as   . Cut the  -kernels by an incision function . Give up the cut sentences from .

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning18 Revision by a Set of Sentences Definition: Let  and A be set of sentences, “  ” an external selection function for . The operator “  ” of partial meet revision by a set of sentences is defined as:   A =  ((   A )   ) Definition: Let  and A be set of sentences, “  ” an external incision function for . The operator “  ” of kernel revision by a set of sentences is defined as:   A = (   A ) \  ((   A )   )

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning19 Revision on DeLP: definition T + (    ) =    ( positive transformation) T – (    ) =      ( negative transformation) Definition: The composed revision of ( ,  ) with respect to A is defined as ( ,  )  A = ( ,  ) such that  =  A and  =    where:  = { T + (  ):    \ (  A )}  { T – (  ):    \ (  A )}

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning20 Revision on DeLP: an example metal(hg) metal(fe) solid(X)  metal(X)  liquid(X)  solid(X)  solid(X)  liquid(X)  =  = { } Then, we receive the following explanation for liquid(hg): liquid(hg)  metal(hg), pressure(normal) metal(hg) pressure(normal)

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning21 Revision on DeLP: an example In kernel revision by a set of sentences, it is necessary to remove any inconsistency from the following sets: metal(hg) pressure(normal) solid(X)  metal(X) liquid(hg)  metal(hg), pressure(normal)  liquid(X)  solid(X) metal(hg) pressure(normal) solid(X)  metal(X) liquid(hg)  metal(hg), pressure(normal)  solid(X)  liquid(X) 11 22

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning22 Revision on DeLP: an example  1 and  2 represent the minimally inconsistent subsets of   A. A possible result of ( ,  )  A = ( ,  ): metal(hg) metal(fe) liquid(hg)  metal(hg),pressure(normal)  liquid(X)  solid(X)  solid(X)  liquid(X)  =  = { solid(X)  metal(X),  metal(X)   solid(X) }

Falappa, García & SimariInternational Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning23 Conclusions and future work We apply a non-prioritized revision operator for changing the agent’s beliefs. We use a defeasible logic program (DeLP) for representing the beliefs of an agent. The combination of belief revision and DeLP is used for reasoning about beliefs. We will explore the properties of this operator on DeLP and develop multi-agent applications.