Advertisement

Techniques to Detect and Eliminate Inconsistencies in Knowledge Bases of Interacting Robots

  • Boris A. Kulik
  • Alexander Ya. Fridman
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 174)

Abstract

Problem statement: behavior of SEMS-based robots is modeled by a knowledge base (KB) represented in different formats (semantic networks, sets of productions, etc.), and the robots interactions model can be represented as an integrated KB. During development and operation KBs, there exists a problem of their anomalies. Retarded detection of such anomalies can lead to malfunctions and breakdowns. Anomalies of inconsistency play an especially important role in faults diagnostics for robots teams. A large number of publications have been devoted to the methods of detecting these and other anomalies. At the same time, methods to eliminate anomalies lack for adequate studies. Purpose of research: development of new methods for detecting anomalies of inconsistency, as well as algebraic methods for eliminating some anomalies in integrated KBs of interacting robots, in particular, the contradiction anomaly during logical inference. Results: an overview of techniques to detect anomalies in integrated KBs of interacting robots is presented. Presupposition is shown to be one of examples of the contradiction anomaly during logical inference. Presupposition is often encountered in texts and has a property of existence of mutually exclusive conclusions from the same premise. A method for explaining and eliminating this anomaly is proposed. Practical significance: the proposed techniques of anomalies detection and elimination can be used to control robots teams in order to decrease failures in their functioning.

Keywords

SEMS-based robot KB anomaly Anomaly of inconsistency Presupposition Anomalies detection and elimination 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Russian Foundation for Basic Researches (grants 16-29-04424, 16-29-12901, 18-07-00132, 18-01-00076) for partial funding of this research.

References

  1. 1.
    Gorodetskiy, A.E. (ed.): Smart Electromechanical Systems. Springer International Publishing (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bond, A., Gasser, L.: Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA (1988)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Luce, R.D., Raiffa, H.: Games and Decisions. Wiley, New York (1957)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Myerson, R.: Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Harward University Press, Cambrige, Massachusetts (1991)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Varshavsky, V.I.: Collective Behavior of Automata. Nauka, Moscow (1973). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wooldridge, M.: An Introduction to Multi-agent Systems. Wiley (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gorodetsky, V.I., Skobelev, P.O.: Industrial applications of multi-agent technology: reality and perspectives. SPIIRAS Proc. 6(55) (2017) (in Russian)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kulik, B.A., Zuenko, A.A., Friedman, A.Ya.: Deductive and defeasible reasoning on the basis of a unified algebraic approach. Sci. Tech. Inf. Process. 42(6), 402–410 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kulik, B.A., Fridman, A.Ya.: Logical analysis of data and knowledge with uncertainties in SEMS. In: Gorodetskiy, A.E. (eds.) Studies in Systems, Decision and Control. Smart Electromechanical Systems, vol. 49, pp. 45–59. Springer International Publishing Switzerland (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kulik, B.A., Fridman, A.Ya.: Unified logical analysis in robots’ CNS based on N-Tuple algebra. In: A.E. Gorodetskiy, V.G. Kurbanov (eds.) Smart Electromechanical Systems: The Central Nervous System. Series: Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, vol. 95, Chapter 2, pp. 17–30. 1st edn. Springer (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ruttkay, Z.: Constraint satisfaction—a survey. CWI Q. 11, 163–214 (1998)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zuenko, A.A.: Constraint inference upon matrix representations of finite predicates. Artif. Intell. Decis. Making 3, 21–31 (2014). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Preece, A.D.: Validation of knowledge-based systems: the state-of-the-art in North America. J. Comm. Cogn. Artif. Intell., 1(№ 4) (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Felfernig, A., Friedrich, G., Jannach, D., Stumptner, M.: Consistency-based diagnosis of configuration knowledge bases. AI J. 152(2) (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baumeister, J., Seipel, D.: Anomalies in ontologies with rules. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 8(1) (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nguyen, T.A., Perkins, W.A., Laffey, T.J., Pecora, D.: Knowledge base verification. AI Mag. 8(№ 2) (1987)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Strawson, P.: Introduction to Logical Theory. London (1952)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Fraassen, B.: Presupposition, implication and self-reference. J. Philos. 65(№ 5) (1968)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beaver, D.: Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Edinburgh (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karttunen, L., Peters, S.: Requiem for presupposition [microform]. Lauri Karttunen and Stanley Peters, Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse (1977)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lakoff, G.: Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bandler, R., Grinder, J.: The Structure of Magic I: A Book About Language and Therapy. Science & Behavior Books, Palo Alto, CA (1975)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Popov, E.V.: Communication with a Computer in a Natural Language. Nauka, Moscow (1982). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pospelov, D.A.: Modeling of Reasoning. Experience in Analysis of Mental Acts. Radio i Svyaz’, Moscow (1989). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Russel, S., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thayse, A., Gribomont, P., Hulin, G., et al.: Approche logique de l’intelligence artificielle, vol. 1. De la logique classique a la programmation logique, Paris (1988)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Frege, G.: Sinn und Bedeutung. In: Frege G. Funktion, Begriff, Bedeutung. Fünf logische Studien, pp. 38–63. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen (1962)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Problems in Mechanical Engineering, Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS)St. PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.Kola Science Centre of RASInstitute for Informatics and Mathematical ModellingApatityRussia

Personalised recommendations