Michael SchroederRalf Schweimeier Department of ComputingCity University, London, [email protected]://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~msch
Arguments and Misunderstandings:A Fuzzy Approach to Conflict Resolution in Open Systems
2
Overview
Motivation: Expressive Knowledge Representation Part I: Argumentation as LP semantics
Notions of attack and justified arguments Hierarchy of semantics Proof procedure
Part II: Fuzzy unification and argumentation Fuzzy negation Fuzzy argumentation Fuzzy unification (work done together with David Gilbert)
3
Knowledge representation
Pete earns 500.000$ p.a. earns(pete,500000).
Cross the street if there are no cars cross not car cross car
The fridge is quite cheap cheap(fridge):70%
Does Mike live in Londn? address(mike,london) = address(mike,londn): 95%
4
Knowledge System Cube
rFB
fDB
fdFB
rDB
dDB
fdDB
dFB
fFB
r: relational f: fuzzy d: deductive
DB: database FB: factbase
ded
uct
ive
negation
fuzz
y
5
Part I:Argumentation as semantics for Extended Logic Programs
rFB
fDB
fdFB
rDB
dDB
fdDB
dFB
fFB
r: relational f: fuzzy d: deductive
DB: database FB: factbase
ded
uct
ive
negation
fuzz
y
6
Extended Logic Programming
Logic Programming with 2 negations Default negation:
not p : true if all attempts to prove p fail. Explicit negation:
p : falsehood of a literal may be stated explicitly. Coherence principle:
p not p
7
Argumentation Interaction between agents in order to
gain knowledge revise existing knowledge convince the opponent solve conflicts
Elegant way to define semantics for (extended) logic programming Dung Kowalski, Toni, Sadri Prakken & Sartor Etc.
8
Arguments
An argument is a partial proof, with implicitly negated literals as assumptions.
Formally: Argument for objective literal L: sequence of rules [ r1, …, rn ] such that
L is the head of r1 ;
no two rules have the same head ; for each objective literal L’ in the body of a rule ri, there is
a rule rj (j > i) such that L’ is the head of rj.
9
Attacking arguments
Two fundamental kinds of attack: A undercuts B = A invalidates premise of B A rebuts B = A contradicts B
Derived notions of attack used in Literature:
A attacks B = A u B or A r B
A defeats B = A u B or (A r B and not B u A)
A strongly attacks B = A a B and not B u A
A strongly undercuts B = A u B and not B u A
10
Proposition: Hierarchy of attacks
Undercuts = u
Strongly undercuts = su = u - u -1
Strongly attacks = sa = (u r ) - u -1
Defeats = d = u ( r - u -1)
Attacks = a = u r
11
Fixpoint Semantics Argumentation:
game between proponent and opponent argument A is acceptable if opponent’s x-attack is countered by
proponent’s y-attack, which proponent already accepted earlier. Acceptable
Let x,y be notions of attack. An argument A is x,y-acceptable w.r.t. a set of arguments S iff
for every argument B, such that (B,A) x, there is a C S such that (C,B) y
Fixpoint semantics Fx/y (S) = { A | A is x,y-acceptable w.r.t. S }
x/y-justified arguments = Least Fixpoint of Fx/y.
x/y-overruled arguments = x-attacked by a justified argument. x/y-defensible iff neither justified nor overruled
12
Theorem: Relationship of semantics Weakening opponent or strengthening proponent increases justified
arguments Different notions of acceptability give rise to different argumentation
semantics
sa/u=sa/d=sa/a
sa/su=sa/sa
d/su=d/u=d/a=d/d=d/sa
u/su=u/u
su/su
su/u
su/a=su/d
su/sa
u/a=u/d=u/sa
a/su=a/u=a/a=a/d=a/sa
Dung’s groundedargumentation semantics
Prakken and Sartor’ssemantics w/o priorities
WFSX
If opponent is allowed to attack,type of defense does not matter
If opponent is allowed defeat,type of defense does not matter
If opponent is allowed undercut,defense with (a,u,sa) or without(su,u) rebut makes a difference
13
Proof procedure Dialogues:
x/y-dialogue is sequence of moves such that Proponent and Opponent alternate Players cannot repeat arguments Opponent x-attacks Proponent’s last argument Proponent y-attacks Opponent’s last argument
Player wins dialogue if other player cannot move Argument A is provably justified if proponent wins all branches of
dialogue tree with root A Concrete implementation SLXA:
Since u/a=u/d=u/sa=WFSX
compute justified arguments with top-down proof procedure SLXA for WFSX [Alferes, Damasio, Pereira]
SLXA can be adapted for other notions
14
Part II:Fuzzy unification and argumentation
rFB
fDB
fdFB
rDB
dDB
fdDB
dFB
fFB
r: relational f: fuzzy d: deductive
DB: database FB: factbase
ded
uct
ive
negation
fuzz
y
15
Classical Fuzzy Logic
Solution: Truth values in [0,1] instead of {0,1}. Assertions:
p:V (p a formula, V a truth value). Conjunction:
p:V, q:W p q : min(V,W) Disjunction:
p:V, q:W p q : max(V,W) Inference:
p q1, …, qn ; q1:V1, …, qn:Vn p : min(V1, …, Vn)
16
Fuzzy Negation
Classical fuzzy negation: L:V L: 1-V (Zadeh)
Our setting (fuzzy adaptation of WFSX): L:V and L:V’ with V’ 1-V possible L and L not directly related.
17
Fuzzy Coherence Principle
If L:V and V > 0, and not L:V’,
then V’ > V. “If there is some explicit evidence that L is false, then
there is at least the same evidence that L is false by default.”
If L:V and V > 0,
then not L: 1.
18
Law of excluded... ...contradiction ...middle
p p :V V > 0 possible Contradictory programs!
not p p : V V > 0 possible By coherence principle!
Contradiction removal
not p p : V V > 0
p p : V V = 0 possible p is unknown
19
Strength of an argument
Strength st of an argument: st ( L:V ) = V st ( L L1,…,Ln ) = min { st (L1 ),…,st (Ln ) }
st ( [r1,…,rn] ) = st ( r1 )
Least fuzzy value of the facts contributing to the argument.
20
Theorems
Theorem (Soundness and Completeness)There is a justified argument of strength V for L
iffThere is a successful T-tree of truth value V for L
Theorem (Conservative Extension)
Argumentation semantics is a conservative extension of WFSX.
21
Application: Fuzzy unification
Open systems: knowledge and ontologies may not match interaction with humans “Does Mike live in Londn?”
Approach: address(mike,london) = address(mike,londn): 95% adapt unification algorithm
(normalised edit distance over trees net) embed into argumentation framework
22
Finding Mismatches: Edit distance
Edit distance between strings A and B: minimal number of delete, add, replace operations to
convert A into B. efficient implementation with dynamic programming
Example: e(address,adresse)=2, e(007,aa7)=2
Normalise: ne(A,B) = e(A,B) / max{ |A|, |B| }
Trees: net = sum of all mismatches divided by sum of all
max lengths
23
Fuzzy unification and arguments
net is conservative extension of MGU (most general unifier)
net(t,t’) ne(t,t’)
V-argument: for all L in a body, there is L’ in head such that net(L,L’) 1-V
A V-undercuts B if A contains not L and B’s head is L’ and net(L,L’) 1-V
A V-rebuts B if A’s head is L and B’s head is L’ and net(L,L’) 1-V
Adapt previous definitions accordingly
24
Comparison: Argumentation
Our framework allows us to relate existing and new argumentation semantics: Dung= a/su=a/u=a/a=a/d=a/sa Prakken&Sartor = d/su=d/u=d/a=d/d=d/sa WFSX = u/a = u/d = u/sa Dung Prakken&Sartor WFSX
Proof Theory and Top-down Proof Procedure adapted from Alferes, Damasio, Pereira’s SLXA
25
Comparison: Fuzzy Argumentation
Wagner: Scale: -1 to +1 Unlike WFSX, he relates F and F:
F: -V iff F:V We adopted his interpretation for not:
not F:1 if F:V, V>0 Relates his work to stable models, but there is no
top-down proof procedure for stable models [Alferes&Pereira]
Our approach conservatively extends WFSX, hence we can adapt proof procedure SLXA
26
Comparison: Fuzzy unification
Arcelli, Formato, Gerla define abstract fuzzy unification/resolution framework cannot deal with missing parameters (common
problem [Fung et al.]) no conservative extension of classical unification we use concrete distance: edit distance
Evaluated idea on bioinfo DB
27
Conclusion “A database needs two kinds of negation” (Wagner) Argumentation is an elegant way of defining semantics Our framework allows classification of various new and
existing semantics Efficient top-down proof procedure for justified arguments Argumentation as basis for belief revision (REVISE) We cover the whole knowledge system cube including
fuzzy argumentation Defined fuzzy unification, which is useful in open systems
28
Other relevant work
ACA: Arguing and Cooperating Agents multi-agent argumentation engine
Demo online at www.soi.city.ac.uk/~msch
29
Other relevant work(together with Gerd Wagner)
Vivid Agents action and reaction rules executable specifications Implemented in simulation and with PVM-Prolog
Demo online at www.soi.city.ac.uk/~msch
30
Other relevant work(together with Carlos Damasio, Luis Pereira)
REVISE Contradiction removal Applied to many domains like circuit diagnosis,
information integration in bioinformatics, alarm correlation in cellular phone network
Demo online at www.soi.city.ac.uk/~msch