New Generation Computing

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 247–275 | Cite as

Belief revision via Lamarckian evolution

  • Evelina Lamma
  • Fabrizio Riguzzi
  • Luís Moniz Pereira
Regular Papers

Abstract

We present a system for performing belief revision in a multi-agent environment. The system is called GBR (Genetic Belief Revisor) and it is based on a genetic algorithm. In this setting, different individuals are exposed to different experiences. This may happen because the world surrounding an agent changes over time or because we allow agents exploring different parts of the world. The algorithm permits the exchange of chromosomes from different agents and combines two different evolution strategies, one based on Darwin’s and the other on Lamarck’s evolutionary theory. The algorithm therefore includes also a Lamarckian operator that changes the memes of an agent in order to improve their fitness. The operator is implemented by means of a belief revision procedure that, by tracing logical derivations, identifies the memes leading to contradiction. Moreover, the algorithm comprises a special crossover mechanism for memes in which a meme can be acquired from another agent only if the other agent has “accessed” the meme, i.e. if an application of the Lamarckian operator has read or modified the meme.

Experiments have been performed on the η-queen problem and on a problem of digital circuit diagnosis. In the case of the η-queen problem, the addition of the Lamarckian operator in the single agent case improves the fitness of the best solution. In both cases the experiments show that the distribution of constraints, even if it may lead to a reduction of the fitness of the best solution, does not produce a significant reduction.

Keywords

Evolutionary Systems Belief Revision Learning Multi-agent Systems Multi-agent Communication 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1).
    Ackely, D. H. and Littman, M. L., “A Case for Lamarckian Evolution,”Artificial Life III. (Langton, C. G. ed.), Addison Wesley, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2).
    Alferes, J. J., Damásio, C. V. and Pereira, L. M., “SLX — A Top-down Derivation Procedure for Programs with Explicit Negation,” inProc. of Int. Symp. on Logic Programming (Bruynooghe, M. ed.), The MIT Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3).
    Alferes, J. J., Damásio, C. V. and Pereira, L. M., “A Logic Programming System for Non-monotonic Reasoning,”Journal of Automated Reasoning, 14, pp. 93–147, 1995.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4).
    Alferes, J. J. and Pereira, L. M.,Reasoning with Logic Programming, 1111, ofLNAI, Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5).
    Alferes, J. J., Pereira, L. M. and Przymusinski, T. C., ““Classical” negation in non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming,”Journal of Automated Reasoning, 20, pp. 107–142, 1998.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6).
    Alferes, J. J., Pereira, L. M. and Swift, T., “Well-founded Abduction via Tabled Dual Programs,” inProc. of the 16th International Conference on Logic Programming (de Schreye, D. ed.), pp. 426–440, MIT Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7).
    Baldwin, J. M., “A New Factor in Evolution,”American Naturalist, 30, pp. 441–451, 1896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8).
    Blackmore, S.,The Meme Machine, Oxford U.P., 1999.Google Scholar
  9. 9).
    Brglez, F., Pownall, P. and Hum, R., “Accelerated ATPG and Fault Grading via Testability Analysis” inProc. of IEEE Int. Symposium on Circuits and Systems, pp. 695–698, 1985. The ISCAS85 benchmark netlist are available via ftp monc.monc.org.Google Scholar
  10. 10).
    Damásio, C. V. and Pereira, L. M., “Abduction on 3-valued extended logic programs,” inLogic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning — Proc. of 3rd International Conference LPNMR’95, 925 of LNAI (Marek, V. W., Nerode, A. and Trusczynski, M. ed.), pp. 29–42, Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11).
    Damásio, C. V. and Pereira, L. M., “A Survey on Paraconsistent Semantics for Extended Logic Programs,”Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems (Gabbay, D. M. and Smets, Ph. eds.),2, pp. 241–320. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12).
    Damásio, C. V., Pereira, L. M. and Schroeder, M., “REVISE: Logic Programming and Diagnosis” inProc. of Logic-Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning, LPNMR’97, 1265 of LNAI, Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  13. 13).
    Dawkins, R.,The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14).
    Dietterich, T., “Approximate Satistical Tests for Comparing Supervised Classification Learning Algorithms,”Neural Computation, in press (draft version available at http://www.cs.orst.edu/tgd/projects/supervised.html), 2000.Google Scholar
  15. 15).
    Dix, J., Pereira, L. M. and Przymusinski, T., “Prolegomena to Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning,” inNon-Monotonic Extensions of Logic Programming — Selected Papers from NMELP’96 (Dix, J., Pereira, L. M. and Przymusinski, T. eds.),1216, in LNAI, pp. 1–36, Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  16. 16).
    Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V., “The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming,” inProc. of the 5th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming (Kowalski, R. and Bowen, K. A. eds.), pp. 1070–1080, MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  17. 17).
    Grefenstette, J. J., “Lamarckian Learning in Multi-agent Environment,” inProc. of 4th Intl. Conference on Genetic Algorithms, Morgan Kauffman, 1991.Google Scholar
  18. 18).
    Hart, W. E. and Belew, R. K., “Optimization with Genetic Algorithms Hybrids That Use Local Search,” inAdaptive Individuals in Evolving Populations (Belew, R. K. and Mitchell, M. eds.), Addison Wesley, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. 19).
    Li, Y., Tan, K. C. and Gong, M., “Model Reduction in Control Systems by Means of Global Structure Evolution and Local Parameter Learning,” inEvolutionary Algorithms in Engineering Applications (Dasgupta, D. and Michalewicz, Z. eds.), Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. 20).
    Malheiro, B., Jennings, N. R. and Oliveira, E., “Belief Revision in Multiagent Systems,” inProc. of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. 21).
    Mitchell, T. M.,Machine Learning, McGraw Hill, 1997.Google Scholar
  22. 22).
    Pereira, L. M. and Alferes, J. J., “Well Founded Semantics for Logic Programs with Explicit Negation,” inProc. of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence ECAI92, pp. 102–106, John Wiley and Sons, 1992.Google Scholar
  23. 23).
    Pereira, L. M., Damásio, C. V. and Alferes, J. J., “Diagnosis and Debugging as Contradiction Removal,” inProc. of the 2nd International Workshop on Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning (Pereira, L. M. and Nerode, A. eds.), pp. 316–330, MIT Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  24. 24).
    Spector, L. and Luke, S., “Cultural Transmission of Information in Genetic Programming,”Genetic Programming 1996: InProc. of the First Annual Conference, pp. 209–214, The MIT Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  25. 25).
    Spector, L. and Luke, S., “Culture Enhances the Evolvability of Cognition,” inProc. of the 1996 Cognitive Science Society Meeting, 1996.Google Scholar
  26. 26).
    van Gelder, A., Ross, K. A. and Schlipf, J. S., “The Well-founded Semantics for General Logic Programs,”Journal of the ACM, 38, 3, pp. 620–650, 1991.MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ohmsha, Ltd. and Springer 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evelina Lamma
    • 1
  • Fabrizio Riguzzi
    • 1
  • Luís Moniz Pereira
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EngineeringUniversity of FerraraFerraraItaly
  2. 2.Centro de Inteligência Artificial (CENTRIA), Faculdade de Ciências e TecnologiaUniversidade Nova de LisboaCaparicaPortugal

Personalised recommendations