Towards a model of UAVs navigation in urban canyon through defeasible logic

This article shows how a non-monotonic rule based system (defeasible logic) can be integrated with numerical computation engines, and how this can be applied to solve the Vehicle Routing Problem. To this end, we have simulated a physical system from which we can obtain numerical information. The physical system perceives information from its environment and generates predicates that can be reasoned by a defeasible logic engine. The conclusions/decisions derived will then be realized by the physical system as it takes actions based on the conclusion derived. Here we consider a scenario where a ‘flock’ of Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles (UAVs) have to navigate within an urban canyon environment. The UAVs are self-autonomous without centralized control. The goal of the UAVs is to navigate to their desired destinations without colliding with each other. In case of possible collision, the UAVs concerned will communicate with each other and use their background knowledge or travel guidelines to resolve the conflicts.

[1]  Gaurav S. Sukhatme,et al.  Combined optic-flow and stereo-based navigation of urban canyons for a UAV , 2005, 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[2]  Guido Governatori,et al.  DR-CONTRACT: an architecture for e-contracts in defeasible logic , 2009, Int. J. Bus. Process. Integr. Manag..

[3]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Preferences of Agents in Defeasible Logic , 2005, Australian Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[4]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Hardware Implementation of Temporal Nonmonotonic Logics , 2006, Australian Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[5]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Defeasible Logic: Agency, Intention and Obligation , 2004, DEON.

[6]  Vladimir Estivill-Castro,et al.  Architecture for Hybrid Robotic Behavior , 2009, HAIS.

[7]  Guido Governatori,et al.  The Making of SPINdle , 2009, RuleML.

[8]  Guido Governatori,et al.  A computational framework for institutional agency , 2008, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[9]  Michael J. Maher Under consideration for publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1 Propositional Defeasible Logic has Linear Complexity , 2004 .

[10]  Guido Governatori,et al.  On the Modeling and Analysis of Regulations , 1999 .

[11]  Holger Hermanns,et al.  Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning , 2010, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[12]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Logic of Violations: A gentzen systems for reasoning with contrary-to-duty obligations , 2006 .

[13]  Guido Governatori,et al.  A Gentzen System for Reasoning with Contrary-To-Duty Obligations: A Preliminary Study , 2002 .

[14]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Temporalised normative positions in defeasible logic , 2005, ICAIL '05.

[15]  Dipti Srinivasan,et al.  An Introduction to Multi-Agent Systems , 2010 .

[16]  Salem Benferhat,et al.  Qualitative choice logic , 2004, Artif. Intell..

[17]  Guido Governatori,et al.  BIO logical agents: Norms, beliefs, intentions in defeasible logic , 2008, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[18]  Michael J. Maher,et al.  Representation results for defeasible logic , 2000, TOCL.

[19]  Michael J. Maher,et al.  A Flexible Framework for Defeasible Logics , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[20]  V. S. Costa,et al.  Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , 2010 .

[21]  Y. Shoham Introduction to Multi-Agent Systems , 2002 .

[22]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Programming Cognitive Agents in Defeasible Logic , 2005, LPAR.

[23]  Matteo Cristani,et al.  A complete classification of ethical attitudes in multiple agent systems , 2009, AAMAS.

[24]  Guido Governatori,et al.  A defeasible logic for modelling policy-based intentions and motivational attitudes , 2009, Log. J. IGPL.

[25]  Gilbert Laporte,et al.  Routing problems: A bibliography , 1995, Ann. Oper. Res..

[26]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Representing business contracts in RuleML , 2005, Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst..