Agents as multi-threaded logical objects

In this paper we describe a distributed object oriented logic programming language in which an object is a collection of threads deductively accessing and updating a shared logic program. The key features of the language, such as static and dynamic object methods and multiple inheritance, are illustrated through a series of small examples. We show how we can implement object servers, allowing remote spawning of objects, which we can use as staging posts for mobile agents. We give as an example an information gathering mobile agent that can be queried about the information it has so far gathered whilst it is gathering new information. Finally we define a class of co-operative reasoning agents that can do resource bounded inference for full first order predicate logic, handling multiple queries and information updates concurrently. We believe that the combination of the concurrent OO and the LP programming paradigms produces a powerful tool for quickly implementing rational multi-agent applications on the internet.

Logic of Violations: A gentzen systems for reasoning with contrary-to-duty obligations

In this paper we present a Gentzen system for reasoning with contrary-to-duty obligations. The intuition behind the system is that a contrary-to-duty is a special kind of normative exception. The logical machinery to formalise this idea is taken from substructural logics and it is based on the definition of a new non-classical connective capturing the notion of reparational obligation. Then the system is tested against well-known contrary-to-duty paradoxes.

BIO Logical Agents: Norms, Beliefs, Intentions in Defeasible Logic

In this paper we follow the BOID (Belief, Obligation, Intention, Desire) architecture to describe agents and agent types in Defeasible Logic. We argue, in particular, that the introduction of obligations can provide a new reading of the concepts of intention and intentionality. Then we examine the notion of social agent (i.e., an agent where obligations prevail over intentions) and discuss some computational and philosophical issues related to it. We show that the notion of social agent either requires more complex computations or has some philosophical drawbacks.

Equational Reasoning as a Tool for Data Analysis

A combination of deductive reasoning, clustering, and inductive learning is given as an example of a hybrid system for exploratory data analysis. Visualization is replaced by a dialogue with the data.

Reasoning about real-time repetitions: terminating and nonterminating

It is common for a real-time system to contain a nonterminating process monitoring an input and controlling an output. Hence, a real-time program development method needs to support nonterminating repetitions. In this paper we develop a general proof rule for reasoning about possibly nonterminating repetitions. The rule makes use of a Floyd-Hoare-style loop invariant that is maintained by each iteration of the repetition, a Jones-style relation between the pre- and post-states on each iteration, and a deadline specifying an upper bound on the starting time of each iteration. The general rule is proved correct with respect to a predicative semantics. In the case of a terminating repetition the rule reduces to the standard rule extended to handle real time. Other special cases include repetitions whose bodies are guaranteed to terminate, nonterminating repetitions with the constant true as a guard, and repetitions whose termination is guaranteed by the inclusion of a fixed deadline. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Assessing clinical reasoning: a method to monitor its development in a PBL curriculum

The aim of this study was to develop and trial a method to monitor the evolution of clinical reasoning in a PBL curriculum that is suitable for use in a large medical school. Termed Clinical Reasoning Problems (CRPs), it is based on the notion that clinical reasoning is dependent on the identification and correct interpretation of certain critical clinical features. Each problem consists of a clinical scenario comprising presentation, history and physical examination. Based on this information, subjects are asked to nominate the two most likely diagnoses and to list the clinical features that they considered in formulating their diagnoses, indicating whether these features supported or opposed the nominated diagnoses. Students at different levels of medical training completed a set of 10 CRPs as well as the Diagnostic Thinking Inventory, a self-reporting questionnaire designed to assess reasoning style. Responses were scored against those of a reference group of general practitioners. Results indicate that the CRPs are an easily administered, reliable and valid assessment of clinical reasoning, able to successfully monitor its development throughout medical training. Consequently, they can be employed to assess clinical reasoning skill in individual students and to evaluate the success of undergraduate medical schools in providing effective tuition in clinical reasoning.

Defining civilization utilizing anthropic reasoning

We utilize anthropic reasoning to demonstrate that we are typical observers of our reference class under a self-sampling assumption by investigating the definition of what a civilization is. With reference to the conflict between such reasoning and the observational lack of extra-terrestrial intelligent life, we conclude that a part of our theoretical understanding of the Universe will be at fault.

Capturing expert knowledge for threatened species assessments: a case study using NatureServe conservation status ranks

Assessments for assigning the conservation status of threatened species that are based purely on subjective judgements become problematic because assessments can be influenced by hidden assumptions, personal biases and perceptions of risks, making the assessment process difficult to repeat. This can result in inconsistent assessments and misclassifications, which can lead to a lack of confidence in species assessments. It is almost impossible to Understand an expert's logic or visualise the underlying reasoning behind the many hidden assumptions used throughout the assessment process. In this paper, we formalise the decision making process of experts, by capturing their logical ordering of information, their assumptions and reasoning, and transferring them into a set of decisions rules. We illustrate this through the process used to evaluate the conservation status of species under the NatureServe system (Master, 1991). NatureServe status assessments have been used for over two decades to set conservation priorities for threatened species throughout North America. We develop a conditional point-scoring method, to reflect the current subjective process. In two test comparisons, 77% of species' assessments using the explicit NatureServe method matched the qualitative assessments done subjectively by NatureServe staff. Of those that differed, no rank varied by more than one rank level under the two methods. In general, the explicit NatureServe method tended to be more precautionary than the subjective assessments. The rank differences that emerged from the comparisons may be due, at least in part, to the flexibility of the qualitative system, which allows different factors to be weighted on a species-by-species basis according to expert judgement. The method outlined in this study is the first documented attempt to explicitly define a transparent process for weighting and combining factors under the NatureServe system. The process of eliciting expert knowledge identifies how information is combined and highlights any inconsistent logic that may not be obvious in Subjective decisions. The method provides a repeatable, transparent, and explicit benchmark for feedback, further development, and improvement. (C) 2004 Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.