JELIA 2012: Logics in Artificial Intelligence pp 80-93 | Cite as
Inconsistency Management for Traffic Regulations: Formalization and Complexity Results
Abstract
Smart Cities is a vision driven by the availability of governmental data that fosters many challenging applications. One of them is the management of inconsistent traffic regulations, i.e., the handling of inconsistent traffic signs and measures in urban areas such as wrong sign posting, or errors in data acquisition in traffic sign administration software. We investigate such inconsistent traffic scenarios and formally model traffic regulations using a logic-based approach for traffic signs and measures, and logical theories describe emerging conflicts on a graph-based street model. Founded on this model, we consider major reasoning tasks including consistency testing, diagnosis, and repair, and we analyze their computational complexity for different logical representation formalisms. Our results provide a basis for an ongoing implementation of the approach.
Keywords
Speed Limit Smart City Effect Mapping Regulation Problem Road UserPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 2(2), 255–287 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 2.Brewka, G., Eiter, T., Truszczyński, M.: Answer set programming at a glance. Commun. ACM 54(12), 92–103 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Console, L., Torasso, P.: Automated diagnosis. Intelligenza Artificiale 3(1-2), 42–48 (2006)Google Scholar
- 4.Dantsin, E., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Voronkov, A.: Complexity and Expressive Power of Logic Programming. ACM Comput. Surv. 33(3), 374–425 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Eiter, T., Faber, W., Fink, M., Woltran, S.: Complexity Results for Answer Set Programming with Bounded Predicate Arities. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 51(2-4), 123–165 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 6.Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Leone, N.: Abduction From Logic Programs: Semantics and Complexity. Theoretical Computer Science 189(1-2), 129–177 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 7.Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: A uniform integration of higher-order reasoning and external evaluations in answer set programming. In: IJCAI, pp. 90–96 (2005)Google Scholar
- 8.Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Kaminski, R., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., Schneider, M.T.: Potassco: The Potsdam answer set solving collection. AI Commun. 24(2), 107–124 (2011)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- 9.Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical Negation in Logic Programs and Disjunctive Databases. Next Generat. Comput. 9(3-4), 365–386 (1991)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 10.de Kleer, J., Kurien, J.: Fundamentals of model-based diagnosis. In: IFAC Symposium SAFEPROCESS 2003, pp. 25–36. Elsevier (2003)Google Scholar
- 11.Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., Scarcello, F.: The DLV System for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. ACM TOCL 7(3), 499–562 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Lucas, P.: Symbolic diagnosis and its formalisation. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 12, 109–146 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Maher, M.J.: Propositional defeasible logic has linear complexity. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 1(6), 691–711 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 14.Papadimitriou, C.H.: Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley (1994)Google Scholar
- 15.Poole, D.: Normality and faults in logic-based diagnosis. In: IJCAI, pp. 1304–1310 (1989)Google Scholar
- 16.Poole, D.: Representing diagnosis knowledge. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 11, 33–50 (1994)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar