Integrating defeasible argumentation with fuzzy ART neural networks for pattern classification

Many classification systems rely on clustering techniques in which a collection of training examples is provided as an input, and a number of clusters c1,...cm modelling some concept C results as an output, such that every cluster ci is labelled as positive or negative. Given a new, unlabelled instance enew, the above classification is used to determine to which particular cluster ci this new instance belongs. In such a setting clusters can overlap, and a new unlabelled instance can be assigned to more than one cluster with conflicting labels. In the literature, such a case is usually solved non-deterministically by making a random choice. This paper presents a novel, hybrid approach to solve this situation by combining a neural network for classification along with a defeasible argumentation framework which models preference criteria for performing clustering.

Formalizing defeasible argumentation using a labeled deductive system

In the last years there has been an increasing demand of a variety of logical systems, prompted mostly by applications of logic in AI, logic programming and other related areas. Labeled Deductive Systems (LDS) were developed as a flexible methodology to formalize such a kind of complex logical systems. In the last decade, defeasible argumentation has proven to be a confluence point for many approaches to formalizing commonsense reasoning. Different formalisms have been developed, many of them sharing common features. This paper presents a formalization of an LDS for defensible argumentation, in which the main issues concerning defeasible argumentation are captured within a unified logical framework. The proposed framework is defined in two stages. First, defeasible inference will be formalized by characterizing an argumentative LDS. That system will be then extended in order to capture conflict among arguments using a dialectical approach. We also present some logical properties emerging from the proposed framework, discussing also its semantical characterization.

A logic programming framework for possibilistic argumentation: formalization and logical properties

In the last decade defeasible argumentation frameworks have evolved to become a sound setting to formalize commonsense, qualitative reasoning. The logic programming paradigm has shown to be particularly useful for developing different argument-based frameworks on the basis of different variants of logic programming which incorporate defeasible rules. Most of such frameworks, however, are unable to deal with explicit uncertainty, nor with vague knowledge, as defeasibility is directly encoded in the object language. This paper presents Possibilistic Logic Programming (P-DeLP), a new logic programming language which combines features from argumentation theory and logic programming, incorporating as well the treatment of possibilistic uncertainty. Such features are formalized on the basis of PGL, a possibilistic logic based on G¨odel fuzzy logic. One of the applications of P-DeLP is providing an intelligent agent with non-monotonic, argumentative inference capabilities. In this paper we also provide a better understanding of such capabilities by defining two non-monotonic operators which model the expansion of a given program P by adding new weighed facts associated with argument conclusions and warranted literals, respectively. Different logical properties for the proposed operators are studied

Formalizing argumentative reasoning in a possibilistic logic programming setting with fuzzy unification

Possibilistic Defeasible Logic Programming (P-DeLP) is a logic programming language which combines features from argumentation theory and logic programming, incorporating the treatment of possibilistic uncertainty at the object-language level. In spite of its expressive power, an important limitation in P-DeLP is that imprecise, fuzzy information cannot be expressed in the object language. One interesting alternative for solving this limitation is the use of PGL+, a possibilistic logic over Gödel logic extended with fuzzy constants. Fuzzy constants in PGL+ allow expressing disjunctive information about the unknown value of a variable, in the sense of a magnitude, modelled as a (unary) predicate. The aim of this article is twofold: firstly, we formalize DePGL+, a possibilistic defeasible logic programming language that extends P-DeLP through the use of PGL+ in order to incorporate fuzzy constants and a fuzzy unification mechanism for them. Secondly, we propose a way to handle conflicting arguments in the context of the extended framework.

Strategic argumentation: A game theoretical investigation

Argumentation is modelled as a game where the payoffs are measured in terms of the probability that the claimed conclusion is, or is not, defeasibly provable, given a history of arguments that have actually been exchanged, and given the probability of the factual premises. The probability of a conclusion is calculated using a standard variant of Defeasible Logic, in combination with standard probability calculus. It is a new element of the present approach that the exchange of arguments is analysed with game theoretical tools, yielding a prescriptive and to some extent even predictive account of the actual course of play. A brief comparison with existing argument-based dialogue approaches confirms that such a prescriptive account of the actual argumentation has been almost lacking in the approaches proposed so far.

Implementation of a non ground meta interpreter for defeasible logic

Human reasoning is a fascinating and complex cognitive process that can be applied in different research areas such as philosophy, psychology, laws and financial. Unfortunately, developing supporting software (to those different areas) able to cope such as complex reasoning it’s difficult and requires a suitable logic abstract formalism. In this thesis we aim to develop a program, that has the job to evaluate a theory (a set of rules) w.r.t. a Goal, and provide some results such as “The Goal is derivable from the KB5 (of the theory)”. In order to achieve this goal we need to analyse different logics and choose the one that best meets our needs. In logic, usually, we try to determine if a given conclusion is logically implied by a set of assumptions T (theory). However, when we deal with programming logic we need an efficient algorithm in order to find such implications. In this work we use a logic rather similar to human logic. Indeed, human reasoning requires an extension of the first order logic able to reach a conclusion depending on not definitely true6 premises belonging to a incomplete set of knowledge. Thus, we implemented a defeasible logic7 framework able to manipulate defeasible rules. Defeasible logic is a non-monotonic logic designed for efficient defeasible reasoning by Nute (see Chapter 2). Those kind of applications are useful in laws area especially if they offer an implementation of an argumentation framework that provides a formal modelling of game. Roughly speaking, let the theory is the set of laws, a keyclaim is the conclusion that one of the party wants to prove (and the other one wants to defeat) and adding dynamic assertion of rules, namely, facts putted forward by the parties, then, we can play an argumentative challenge between two players and decide if the conclusion is provable or not depending on the different strategies performed by the players. Implementing a game model requires one more meta-interpreter able to evaluate the defeasible logic framework; indeed, according to Göedel theorem (see on page 127), we cannot evaluate the meaning of a language using the tools provided by the language itself, but we need a meta-language able to manipulate the object language8. Thus, rather than a simple meta-interpreter, we propose a Meta-level containing different Meta-evaluators. The former has been explained above, the second one is needed to perform the game model, and the last one will be used to change game execution and tree derivation strategies.

DR-NEGOTIATE - A system for automated agent negotiation with defeasible logic-based strategies

This paper reports on a system for automated agent negotiation, based on a formal and executable approach to capture the behavior of parties involved in a negotiation. It uses the JADE agent framework, and its major distinctive feature is the use of declarative negotiation strategies. The negotiation strategies are expressed in a declarative rules language, defeasible logic, and are applied using the implemented system DR-DEVICE. The key ideas and the overall system architecture are described, and a particular negotiation case is presented in detail.

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.

Interaction between Normative Systems and Cognitive Agents in Temporal Modal Defeasible Logic

While some recent frameworks on cognitive agents addressed the combination of mental attitudes with deontic concepts, they commonly ignore the representation of time. An exception is [1]that manages also some temporal aspects both with respect to cognition and normative provisions. We propose in this paper an extension of the logic presented in [1]with temporal intervals.

Variants of temporal defeasible logics for modelling norm modifications

This paper proposes some variants of Temporal Defeasible Logic (TDL) to reason about normative modifications. These variants make it possible to differentiate cases in which, for example, modifications at some time change legal rules but their conclusions persist afterwards from cases where also their conclusions are blocked.

Contextual Deliberation of Cognitive Agents in Defeasible Logic

This article extends Defeasible Logic to deal with the contextual deliberation process of cognitive agents. First, we introduce meta-rules to reason with rules. Meta-rules are rules that have as a consequent rules for motivational components, such as obligations, intentions and desires. In other words, they include nested rules. Second, we introduce explicit preferences among rules. They deal with complex structures where nested rules can be involved.

VirtualECare: group decision supported by idea generation and argumentation

In the last years there has been a considerable increase in the number of people in need of intensive care, especially among the elderly, a phenomenon that is related to population ageing (Brown 2003). However, this is not exclusive of the elderly, as diseases as obesity, diabetes, and blood pressure have been increasing among young adults (Ford and Capewell 2007). As a new fact, it has to be dealt with by the healthcare sector, and particularly by the public one. Thus, the importance of finding new and cost effective ways for healthcare delivery are of particular importance, especially when the patients are not to be detached from their environments (WHO 2004). Following this line of thinking, a VirtualECare Multiagent System is presented in section 2, being our efforts centered on its Group Decision modules (Costa, Neves et al. 2007) (Camarinha-Matos and Afsarmanesh 2001).On the other hand, there has been a growing interest in combining the technological advances in the information society - computing, telecommunications and knowledge – in order to create new methodologies for problem solving, namely those that convey on Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS), based on agent perception. Indeed, the new economy, along with increased competition in today’s complex business environments, takes the companies to seek complementarities, in order to increase competitiveness and reduce risks. Under these scenarios, planning takes a major role in a company life cycle. However, effective planning depends on the generation and analysis of ideas (innovative or not) and, as a result, the idea generation and management processes are crucial. Our objective is to apply the GDSS referred to above to a new area. We believe that the use of GDSS in the healthcare arena will allow professionals to achieve better results in the analysis of one’s Electronically Clinical Profile (ECP). This attainment is vital, regarding the incoming to the market of new drugs and medical practices, which compete in the use of limited resources.

Modelling group decision simulation through argumentation

Group decision making plays an important role in today’s organisations. The impact of decision making is so high and complex, that rarely the decision making process is made individually. In Group Decision Argumentation, there is a set of participants, with different profiles and expertise levels, that exchange ideas or engage in a process of argumentation and counter-argumentation, negotiate, cooperate, collaborate or even discuss techniques and/or methodologies for problem solving. In this paper, it is proposed a Multi-Agent simulator for the behaviour representation of group members in a decision making process. Agents behave depending on rational and emotional intelligence and use persuasive argumentation to convince and make alternative choices.

LAID - a smart decision room with ambient intelligence for group decision making and argumentation support considering emotional aspects

Decision Making is one of the most important activities of the human being. Nowadays decisions imply to consider many different points of view, so decisions are commonly taken by formal or informal groups of persons. Groups exchange ideas or engage in a process of argumentation and counter-argumentation, negotiate, cooperate, collaborate or even discuss techniques and/or methodologies for problem solving. Group Decision Making is a social activity in which the discussion and results consider a combination of rational and emotional aspects. In this paper we will present a Smart Decision Room, LAID (Laboratory of Ambient Intelligence for Decision Making). In LAID environment it is provided the support to meeting room participants in the argumentation and decision making processes, combining rational and emotional aspects.

Evaluating the combination of relaxation and argumentation in ontology matching negotiation

No decorrer dos últimos anos, os agentes (inteligentes) de software foram empregues como um método para colmatar as dificuldades associadas com a gestão, partilha e reutilização de um crescente volume de informação, enquanto as ontologias foram utilizadas para modelar essa mesma informação num formato semanticamente explícito e rico. À medida que a popularidade da Web Semântica aumenta e cada vez informação é partilhada sob a forma de ontologias, o problema de integração desta informação amplifica-se. Em semelhante contexto, não é expectável que dois agentes que pretendam cooperar utilizem a mesma ontologia para descrever a sua conceptualização do mundo. Inclusive pode revelar-se necessário que agentes interajam sem terem conhecimento prévio das ontologias utilizadas pelos restantes, sendo necessário que as conciliem em tempo de execução num processo comummente designado por Mapeamento de Ontologias [1]. O processo de mapeamento de ontologias é normalmente oferecido como um serviço aos agentes de negócio, podendo ser requisitado sempre que seja necessário produzir um alinhamento. No entanto, tendo em conta que cada agente tem as suas próprias necessidades e objetivos, assim como a própria natureza subjetiva das ontologias que utilizam, é possível que tenham diferentes interesses relativamente ao processo de alinhamento e que, inclusive, recorram aos serviços de mapeamento que considerem mais convenientes [1]. Diferentes matchers podem produzir resultados distintos e até mesmo contraditórios, criando-se assim conflitos entre os agentes. É necessário que se proceda então a uma tentativa de resolução dos conflitos existentes através de um processo de negociação, de tal forma que os agentes possam chegar a um consenso relativamente às correspondências que devem ser utilizadas na tradução de mensagens a trocar. A resolução de conflitos é considerada uma métrica de grande importância no que diz respeito ao processo de negociação [2]: considera-se que existe uma maior confiança associada a um alinhamento quanto menor o número de conflitos por resolver no processo de negociação que o gerou. Desta forma, um alinhamento com um número elevado de conflitos por resolver apresenta uma confiança menor que o mesmo alinhamento associado a um número elevado de conflitos resolvidos. O processo de negociação para que dois ou mais agentes gerem e concordem com um alinhamento é denominado de Negociação de Mapeamentos de Ontologias. À data existem duas abordagens propostas na literatura: (i) baseadas em Argumentação (e.g. [3] [4]) e (ii) baseadas em Relaxamento [5] [6]. Cada uma das propostas expostas apresenta um número de vantagens e limitações. Foram propostas várias formas de combinação das duas técnicas [2], com o objetivo de beneficiar das vantagens oferecidas e colmatar as suas limitações. No entanto, à data, não são conhecidas experiências documentadas que possam provar tal afirmação e, como tal, não é possível atestar que tais combinações tragam, de facto, o benefício que pretendem. O trabalho aqui apresentado pretende providenciar tais experiências e verificar se a afirmação de melhorias em relação aos resultados das técnicas individuais se mantém. Com o objetivo de permitir a combinação e de colmatar as falhas identificadas, foi proposta uma nova abordagem baseada em Relaxamento, que é posteriormente combinada com as abordagens baseadas em Argumentação. Os seus resultados, juntamente com os da combinação, são aqui apresentados e discutidos, sendo possível identificar diferenças nos resultados gerados por combinações diferentes e possíveis contextos de utilização.