Perceiving Rules under Incomplete and Inconsistent Information

The overall goal of this research program is a construction of a paraconsistent model of agents' communication, comprising two building blocks: speaking about facts and speaking about reasoning rules. To construct complex dialogues, such as persuasion, deliberation, information seeking, negotiation or inquiry, the speech acts theory provides the necessary building material. This paper extends the implementation of the speech act assert in thei¾źparaconsistent framework, presented in our previous paper, by providing means for agents to perceive and learn not only facts, but also rules. To this end the admissibility criterion for ai¾źrule to be accepted has been defined and the Algorithm for Perceiving Assertions About Rules has been proposed. A natural four-valued model of interaction yields multiple new cognitive situations. Epistemic profiles encode the way agents reason, and therefore also deal with inconsistent or lacking information. Communicative relations in turn comprise various aspects of communication and allow for the fine-tuning of applications. The particular choice of ai¾źrule-based, Datalog i¾źi¾ź-like query language 4QL as ai¾źfour-valued implementation framework ensures that, in contrast to the standard two-valued approaches, tractability of the model is maintained.

[1]  Munindar P. Singh.  A semantics for speech acts , 1997, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[2]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Rational interaction as the basis for communication , 2003 .

[3]  Jozef Kelemen,et al.  Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence Research , 1991, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[4]  José Júlio Alferes,et al.  Dynamic Logic Programming , 1998, APPIA-GULP-PRODE.

[5]  Barbara Dunin-Keplicz,et al.  Creating Collective Intention through Dialogue , 2001, Log. J. IGPL.

[6]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems , 2011, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[7]  John-Jules Ch. Meyer,et al.  Actions That Make You Change Your Mind (Extended Abstract) , 1995, KI.

[8]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Handbook of Knowledge Representation , 2008, Handbook of Knowledge Representation.

[9]  Cristiano Castelfranchi,et al.  Revising Beliefs Through Arguments: Bridging the Gap Between Argumentation and Belief Revision in MAS , 2004, ArgMAS.

[10]  Andrzej Szalas,et al.  Epistemic Profiles and Belief Structures , 2012, KES-AMSTA.

[11]  Stefania Costantini,et al.  Learning by Knowledge Exchange in Logical Agents , 2005, WOA.

[12]  Marianne Winslett,et al.  Updating logical databases , 1990, Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science.

[13]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Making inconsistency respectable: a logical framework for inconsistency in reasoning , 1991, FAIR.

[14]  D. Walton,et al.  Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning , 1995 .

[15]  Rüdiger Dillmann,et al.  Communication as the basis for learning in multi-agent systems , 1996 .

[16]  François Fages,et al.  Consistency of Clark's completion and existence of stable models , 1992, Methods Log. Comput. Sci..

[17]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Computational Representation of Practical Argument , 2006, Synthese.

[18]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Formal systems for persuasion dialogue , 2006, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[19]  Frank Wolter,et al.  Semi-qualitative Reasoning about Distances: A Preliminary Report , 2000, JELIA.

[20]  Peter McBurney,et al.  Tenacious Tortoises: A Formalism for Argument over Rules of Inference , 2010 .

[21]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  ATL Satisfiability is Indeed EXPTIME-complete , 2006, J. Log. Comput..

[22]  as,et al.  Living with inconsistency and taming nonmonotonicity , 2010 .

[23]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law , 2010, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[24]  Davide Ancona,et al.  Languages for Programming BDI-style Agents: an Overview , 2005, WOA.

[25]  José Júlio Alferes,et al.  Evolving Logic Programs , 2002, JELIA.

[26]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Modelling reasoning about evidence in legal procedure , 2001, ICAIL '01.

[27]  Andrzej Szalas,et al.  Perceiving Speech Acts under Incomplete and Inconsistent Information , 2013, KES-AMSTA.

[28]  Rüdiger Dillmann,et al.  Learning and Communication in Multi-Agent Systems , 1996, ECAI Workshop LDAIS / ICMAS Workshop LIOME.

[29]  Andrzej Szalas,et al.  Partiality and Inconsistency in Agents' Belief Bases , 2013, KES-AMSTA.

[30]  Andrzej Szalas,et al.  Modeling and Reasoning with Paraconsistent Rough Sets , 2009, Fundam. Informaticae.

[31]  Barbara Dunin-Keplicz,et al.  Complexity Issues in Multiagent Logics , 2007, Fundam. Informaticae.

[32]  Peter McBurney,et al.  Argumentation-Based Dialogues for Agent Co-Ordination , 2003 .

[33]  Sandra de Amo,et al.  A paraconsistent logic programming approach for querying inconsistent databases , 2007, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[34]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Handbook of paraconsistency , 2007 .