Practical Reasoning About Complex Activities

In this paper, we present an argument-based mechanism to generate hypotheses about belief-desire-intentions on dynamic and complex activities of a software agent. We propose to use a composed structure called activity as unit for agent deliberation analysis, maintaining actions, goals and observations of the world always situated into a context. Activity transformation produces changes in the knowledge base activity structure as well in the agent’s mental states. For example, in car driving as a changing activity, experienced and novice drivers have a different mental attitudes defining distinct deliberation processes with the same observations of the world. Using a framework for understanding activities in social sciences, we endow a software agent with the ability of deliberate, drawing conclusion about current and past events dealing with activity transformations. An argument-based deliberation is proposed which progressively reason about activity segments in a bottom-up manner. Activities are captured as extended logic programs and hypotheses are built using an answer-set programming approach. We present algorithms and an early-stage implementation of our argument-based deliberation process.

[1]  Jürgen Dix,et al.  A Classification Theory of Semantics of Normal Logic Programs: I. Strong Properties , 1995, Fundam. Informaticae.

[2]  Henry A. Kautz,et al.  Generalized Plan Recognition , 1986, AAAI.

[3]  Kenneth A. Ross,et al.  The well-founded semantics for general logic programs , 1991, JACM.

[4]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  Modeling Rational Agents within a BDI-Architecture , 1997, KR.

[5]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Miguel Ángel Sotelo,et al.  Using Fuzzy Logic in Automated Vehicle Control , 2006 .

[7]  Henry Kautz,et al.  Chapter 2 – A Formal Theory of Plan Recognition and its Implementation , 1991 .

[8]  Rama Chellappa,et al.  Machine Recognition of Human Activities: A Survey , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology.

[9]  Paul E. Dunne,et al.  Semi-stable semantics , 2006, J. Log. Comput..

[10]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Closure and Consistency In Logic-Associated Argumentation , 2014, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[12]  Leila Amgoud,et al.  A Formal Framework for Handling Conflicting Desires , 2003, ECSQARU.

[13]  Jon Doyle,et al.  Doyle See Infer Choose Do Perceive Act , 2009 .

[14]  Souhila Kaci,et al.  On the Generation of Bipolar Goals in Argumentation-Based Negotiation , 2004, ArgMAS.

[15]  A. Roadmapof A Roadmap of Agent Research and Development , 1995 .

[16]  K. Kuutti Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research , 1995 .

[17]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  An Argumentation-Based Approach for Practical Reasoning , 2006, ArgMAS.

[18]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases , 1991, New Generation Computing.

[19]  A. N. Leontiev,et al.  Activity and Consciousness , 2016 .

[20]  W. R. Howard Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design , 2007 .

[21]  Esteban Guerrero,et al.  Semantic-based construction of arguments: An answer set programming approach , 2015, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[22]  Juan Carlos Nieves,et al.  WizArg: Visual Argumentation Framework Solving Wizard , 2010, CCIA.

[23]  Michael J. O’Donnell Introduction: Logic and Logic Programming Languages , 1998 .

[24]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages: A Survey , 1995, ECAI Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages.

[25]  Wolfgang Faber,et al.  The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning , 2002, TOCL.

[26]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argumentation in artificial intelligence , 2007, Artif. Intell..