一种研讨模型

提出了一种研讨模型.该模型用简化的Toulmin模型表示争议内部结构,用Dung的抽象辩论框架的方法定义争议之间的关系,给出了争议可防卫性和陈述可接受性算法.用该模型对已有文献中的实例重新建模,结果表明,该模型能够准确计算陈述可接受性并得出研讨结果.该模型研究出发点是对实际群体研讨建模,但也可以用于非经典逻辑形式系统建模.     

基于证据推理的确定因子规则库推理方法

不确定性推理方法是人工智能领域的一个主要研究内容,If-then规则是人工智能领域最常见的知识表示方法. 文章针对实际问题往往具有不确定性的特点,提出基于证据推理的确定因子规则库推理方法.首先在If-then规则的基础上给出确定因子结构和确定因子规则库知识表示方法,该方法可以有效利用各种类型的不确定性信息,充分考虑了前提、结论以及规则本身的多种不确定性. 然后,提出了基于证据推理的确定因子规则库推理方法. 该方法通过将已知事实与规则前提进行匹配,推断结论并得到已知事实条件下的前提确定因子;进一步,根据证据推理算法得到结论的确定因子. 文章最后,通过基于证据推理的确定因子规则库推理方法在UCI数据集分类问题的应用算例,说明该方法的可行性和高效性.     

基于模糊Petri网的三值产生式知识表示及推理

针对传统产生式规则无法进行不确定性知识表示和推理的局限,本文使用三值产生式规则,用-1表示前提、结论和它们之间的不确定性,提出一种基于模糊Petri网的三值产生式知识表示和不确定性推理算法.该算法充分利用推理过程中已得到的中间结论,通过标识和关联矩阵的运算实现高速推理.     

基于犹豫模糊可信度的知识推理

针对不确定性推理中的可信度估值不精确的问题,将犹豫模糊集引入可信度不确定性推理中。提出犹豫模糊可信度的定义,并基于可信度的知识表示给出犹豫模糊可信度的知识表示方式。为解决专家在推理过程中出现的信息缺失问题,提出求解平均值的信息补全方法。构建犹豫模糊可信度的单条规则和多条规则并行关系的运算法则,并给出基于犹豫模糊可信度的知识表示与推理的具体步骤。最后,运用实例验证了所提算法的可行性及有效性。     

一种基于十元格蕴涵代数的知识表示方法

不确定知识表示中常使用语言值来表达其真实程度和可信程度。为处理具有语言值可信度的不确定性知识表示问题,基于十元格蕴涵代数,建立一个十元语言值可信度因子知识表示模型,并实现了具有语言值可信度因子的知识推理。所提出的知识表示方法可以有效地表达具有可比性或不可比性的语言值不确定性信息。实例说明所提出的方法在表示知识时能够尽量模拟具有语言值信息的人类思维模式,有利于对不确定性知识的智能处理。     

一种对仿真可信度评估的智能专家系统

研究对仿真可信度的评估问题.针对传统的人类专家评估方法其工作量大、信息不确定以及结果模糊等问题,提出一种新型的替代专家的评估仿真可信度的方法,以不确定性知识表示和推理为基础,通过构建智能评估专家系统来实现评估.并对不确定性知识的表示与量度、不确定性推理、以及模糊信息的量化和信息的综合等相关知识进行了详细的描述.以细胞信号转导网络仿真模型的评估为实例进行了演示,演示表明:系统对于其仿真模型的评估实用,结果客观,可信.可与人类专家的决策过程媲美.     

基于知识Petri网的确定性和不确定性联合推理

知识推理是人工智能的核心领域,旨在研究如何从已知(知识库和推理规则)推理出未知,以帮助智能体做出科学决策.而智能体所处的环境存在不可观性和不确定性,因此知识库通常不仅包含确定性知识,还包含不确定性知识,而且推理过程需要两类知识紧密协作.然而,目前的推理方法无法将两类知识统一表示,常常将两者对应的推理过程割裂进行.基于此,为了实现在统一的模型架构下完成确定性和不确定性联合推理,给出了一种知识Petri网推理方法.首先,定义了一种新的知识Petri网,使其不仅能够描述确定性的知识规范,也可以描述先验概率知识;其次,根据知识Petri网的网结构,给出了一种知识Petri网概率独立剪枝算法,能够指数级地降低不确定性推理的计算复杂性;最后,利用知识Petri网及其概率独立剪枝算法,给出了一种新型推理算法,实现了确定性和不确定性的联合推理,并利用Wumpus世界进行了演示和验证.     

基于非单调推理的领域专家知识库的研究

1.知识表示及推理概况知识库在人工智能研究中占有重要地位。Gins-berg等人介绍了多种知识库更新方法,其中一类是基于模型的方法,一类是基于公式的方法,但所有这些方法在通常情况下都是难解的(intractable)。对基于模型的方法,Eiter指出,当知识库是Horn公式的集合,新知识是Horn公式且长度有一常数上界时,存在多项式时间算法。马绍汉提出一类树型知识库的更新算法,在树型的束图智能方式表示下,该算法通过一个自底向上的过程,得到更新后的知识库。确定推理的研究是基于经典的二值逻辑,因而,具有相当牢固的基础,而不确定推理的研究却是另一种情形。不确定推理的基础比确定推理的基础要弱得多。到目前为止,甚至还没有获得人们普遍接受的基础。不确定推理面对下面几个问题:(1)如何正确地、定性地刻画一个命题的不确定性?(2)如何适当地度量一个命题的不确定性?     

基于知识的航电设备故障诊断专家系统

为了解决航电设备故障难以诊断的问题,设计一个基于知识的航电设备故障诊断专家系统。该系统中的知识表示形式及与之相配合的基于确定性理论模型的不确定性推理方法,以及基于示例的推理方法可以实现航电设备的故障推理和诊断,其规则的可信度可达到理想的程度。     

面向分布式应用管理的混合故障诊断模型

由于分布式应用的动态性、复杂性,传统的人工管理已经不能做到很好的故障管理,应用自主计算的思想实现管理成为一种解决问题的方法.研究基于故障诊断技术实现系统自感知.首先,根据对分布式应用故障管理的分析,提出一种混合故障诊断模型,将故障诊断的过程分为应用服务故障诊断和网络服务故障诊断2个阶段;其次,由于对网络故障症状的观察存在不确定和不准确的特点,将故障诊断模型映射到贝叶斯网络上进行不确定性推理;最后,重点研究了在多层FPM模型中进行推理的算法,给出一种基于变量消元算法的改进算法,实验证明改进算法可加速推理过程.     

Argument-based agreements in agent societies

In this paper, we present an abstract argumentation framework for the support of agreement processes in agent societies. It takes into account arguments, attacks among them, and the social context of the agents that put forward arguments. Then, we define the semantics of the framework, providing a mechanism to evaluate arguments in view of other arguments posed in the argumentation process. We also provide a translation of the framework into a neural network that computes the set of acceptable arguments and can be tuned to give more or less importance to argument attacks. Finally, the framework is illustrated with an example in a real domain of a water-rights transfer market.     

A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments

Argumentation is a reasoning model based on the construction of arguments and counter-arguments (or defeaters) followed by the selection of the most acceptable of them. In this paper, we refine the argumentation framework proposed by Dung by taking into account preference relations between arguments in order to integrate two complementary points of view on the concept of acceptability: acceptability based on the existence of direct counter-arguments and acceptability based on the existence of defenders. An argument is thus acceptable if it is preferred to its direct defeaters or if it is defended against its defeaters. This also refines previous works by Prakken and Sartor, by associating with each argument a notion of strength, while these authors embed preferences in the definition of the defeat relation. We propose a revised proof theory in terms of AND/OR trees, verifying if a given argument is acceptable, which better reflects the dialectical form of argumentation.     

Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation

We present a family of dialectic proof procedures for the admissibility semantics of assumption-based argumentation. These proof procedures are defined for any conventional logic formulated as a collection of inference rules and show how any such logic can be extended to a dialectic argumentation system.The proof procedures find a set of assumptions, to defend a given belief, by starting from an initial set of assumptions that supports an argument for the belief and adding defending assumptions incrementally to counter-attack all attacks.The proof procedures share the same notion of winning strategy for a dispute and differ only in the search strategy they use for finding it. The novelty of our approach lies mainly in its use of backward reasoning to construct arguments and potential arguments, and the fact that the proponent and opponent can attack one another before an argument is completed. The definition of winning strategy can be implemented directly as a non-deterministic program, whose search strategy implements the search for defences.     

Using argument strength for building dialectical bonsai

Argumentation in AI provides an inconsistency-tolerant formalism capable of establishing those pieces of knowledge that can be accepted despite having information in contradiction. Computation of accepted arguments tends to be expensive; in order to alleviate this issue, we propose a heuristics-based pruning technique over argumentation trees. Empirical testing shows that in most cases our approach answers queries much faster than the usual techniques, which prune with no guide. The heuristics is based on a measure of strength assigned to arguments. We show how to compute these strength values by providing the corresponding algorithms, which use dynamic programming techniques to reutilise previously computed trees. In addition to this, we introduce a set of postulates characterising the desired behaviour of any strength formula. We check the given measure of strength against these postulates to show that its behaviour is rational. Although the approach presented here is based on an abstract argumentation framework, the techniques are tightly connected to the dialectical process rather than to the framework itself. Thus, results can be extrapolated to other dialectical-tree-based argumentation formalisms with no additional difficulty.     

一种基于时态的扩展值辩论框架

时间是用来描述辩论过程以及辩论活动变化的一个重要因素,在辩论框架中加入时间因素是积极的。本文结合Dung的标准辩论框架以及Bench-Capon的基于值的辩论框架,提出了基于时态的扩展值辩论框架。首先分析了Dung的辩论框架以及Bench-Capon的值辩论框架在时态以及辩论值方面描述的局限性及需求,然后结合这些需求提出了基于时态的扩展值辩论框架,给出了完整的框架结构和语义描述,证明了基于时态的扩展值辩论框架满足Dung提出的标准辩论框架的一些基本定理。     

On Resolving Conflicts Between Arguments

Argument systems are based on the idea that one can construct arguments for propositions—structured reasons justifying the belief in a proposition. Using defeasible rules, arguments need not be valid in all circumstances, therefore, it might be possible to construct an argument for a proposition as well as its negation. When arguments support conflicting propositions, one of the arguments must be defeated, which raises the question of which (sub‐) arguments can be subject to defeat. In legal argumentation, metarules determine the valid arguments by considering the last defeasible rule of each argument involved in a conflict. Since it is easier to evaluate arguments using their last rules, can a conflict be resolved by considering only the last defeasible rules of the arguments involved? We propose a new argument system where, instead of deriving a defeat relation between arguments, arguments for the defeat of defeasible rules are constructed. This system allows us to determine a set of valid (undefeated) arguments in linear time using an algorithm based on a JTMS, allows conflicts to be resolved using only the last rules of the arguments, allows us to establish a relation with Default Logic, and allows closure properties such as cumulativity to be proved. We propose an extension of the argument system based on a proposal for reasoning by cases in default logic.     

A logic of argumentation for specification and verification of abstract argumentation frameworks

In this paper, we propose a logic of argumentation for the specification and verification (LA4SV) of requirements on Dung??s abstract argumentation frameworks. We distinguish three kinds of decision problems for argumentation verification, called extension verification, framework verification, and specification verification respectively. For example, given a political requirement like ??if the argument to increase taxes is accepted, then the argument to increase services must be accepted too,?? we can either verify an extension of acceptable arguments, or all extensions of an argumentation framework, or all extensions of all argumentation frameworks satisfying a framework specification. We introduce the logic of argumentation verification to specify such requirements, and we represent the three verification problems of argumentation as model checking and theorem proving properties of the logic. Moreover, we recast the logic of argumentation verification in a modal framework, in order to express multiple extensions, and properties like transitivity and reflexivity of the attack relation. Finally, we introduce a logic of meta-argumentation where abstract argumentation is used to reason about abstract argumentation itself. We define the logic of meta-argumentation using the fibring methodology in such a way to represent attack relations not only among arguments but also among attacks. We show how to use this logic to verify the requirements of argumentation frameworks where higher-order attacks are allowed [A preliminary version of the logic of argumentation compliance was called the logic of abstract argumentation?(2005).]     

Agents that argue and explain classifications

Argumentation is a promising approach used by autonomous agents for reasoning about inconsistent/incomplete/uncertain knowledge, based on the construction and the comparison of arguments. In this paper, we apply this approach to the classification problem, whose purpose is to construct from a set of training examples a model that assigns a class to any new example. We propose a formal argumentation-based model that constructs arguments in favor of each possible classification of an example, evaluates them, and determines among the conflicting arguments the acceptable ones. Finally, a “valid” classification of the example is suggested. Thus, not only the class of the example is given, but also the reasons behind that classification are provided to the user as well in a form that is easy to grasp. We show that such an argumentation-based approach for classification offers other advantages, like for instance classifying examples even when the set of training examples is inconsistent, and considering more general preference relations between hypotheses. In the particular case of concept learning, the results of version space theory developed by Mitchell are retrieved in an elegant way in our argumentation framework. Finally, we show that the model satisfies the rationality postulates identified in argumentation literature. This ensures that the model delivers sound results. This article extends and revises results presented in preliminary form in the paper [9].     

Algorithms and complexity results for persuasive argumentation

The study of arguments as abstract entities and their interaction as introduced by Dung (1995) [1] has become one of the most active research branches within Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning. A main issue for abstract argumentation systems is the selection of acceptable sets of arguments. Value-based argumentation, as introduced by Bench-Capon (2003) [8], extends Dung?s framework. It takes into account the relative strength of arguments with respect to some ranking representing an audience: an argument is subjectively accepted if it is accepted with respect to some audience, it is objectively accepted if it is accepted with respect to all audiences.Deciding whether an argument is subjectively or objectively accepted, respectively, are computationally intractable problems. In fact, the problems remain intractable under structural restrictions that render the main computational problems for non-value-based argumentation systems tractable. In this paper we identify nontrivial classes of value-based argumentation systems for which the acceptance problems are polynomial-time tractable. The classes are defined by means of structural restrictions in terms of the underlying graphical structure of the value-based system. Furthermore we show that the acceptance problems are intractable for two classes of value-based systems that where conjectured to be tractable by Dunne (2007) [12].     

Argumentation frameworks as constraint satisfaction problems

Argumentation is a promising approach for defeasible reasoning. It consists of justifying each plausible conclusion by arguments. Since the available information may be inconsistent, a conclusion and its negation may both be justified. The arguments are thus said to be conflicting. The main issue is how to evaluate the arguments. Several semantics were proposed for that purpose. The most important ones are: stable, preferred, complete, grounded and admissible. A semantics is a set of criteria that should be satisfied by a set of arguments, called extension, in order to be acceptable. Different decision problems related to these semantics were defined (like whether an argumentation framework has a stable extension). It was also shown that most of these problems are intractable. Consequently, developing algorithms for these problems is not trivial and thus the implementation of argumentation systems not obvious. Recently, some solutions to this problem were found. The idea is to use a reduction method where a given problem is translated in another one like SAT or ASP. This paper follows this line of research. It studies how to encode the problem of computing the extensions of an argumentation framework (under each of the previous semantics) as a constraint satisfaction problem (CSP). Such encoding is of great importance since it makes it possible to use the very efficient solvers (developed by the CSP community) for computing the extensions. Our encodings take advantage of existing reductions to SAT problems in the case of Dung’s abstract framework. Among the various ways of translating a SAT problem into a CSP one, we propose the most appropriate one in the argumentation context. We also provide encodings in case two other families of argumentation frameworks: the constrained version of Dung’s abstract framework and preference-based argumentation framework.