Perceiving Rules under Incomplete and Inconsistent Information

  • Barbara Dunin-Kęplicz
  • Alina Strachocka
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8143)


The overall goal of this research program is a construction of a paraconsistent model of agents’ communication, comprising two building blocks: speaking about facts and speaking about reasoning rules. To construct complex dialogues, such as persuasion, deliberation, information seeking, negotiation or inquiry, the speech acts theory provides the necessary building material. This paper extends the implementation of the speech act assert in the paraconsistent framework, presented in our previous paper, by providing means for agents to perceive and learn not only facts, but also rules. To this end the admissibility criterion for a rule to be accepted has been defined and the Algorithm for Perceiving Assertions About Rules has been proposed. A natural four-valued model of interaction yields multiple new cognitive situations. Epistemic profiles encode the way agents reason, and therefore also deal with inconsistent or lacking information. Communicative relations in turn comprise various aspects of communication and allow for the fine-tuning of applications.

The particular choice of a rule-based, Datalog ¬¬-like query language 4QL as a four-valued implementation framework ensures that, in contrast to the standard two-valued approaches, tractability of the model is maintained.


Multiagent System Belief Revision Communicative Relation Belief Structure Reasoning Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., McBurney, P.: Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese 152, 157–206 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Austin, J.L.: How to Do Things with Words, 2nd edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1975) Edited by J. O. Urmson, M. SbisaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Amo, S., Pais, M.: A paraconsistent logic approach for querying inconsistent databases. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 46, 366–386 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dignum, F., Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL 9, 145–158 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Strachocka, A., Szałas, A., Verbrugge, R.: Perceiving Speech Acts under Incomplete and Inconsistent Information. In: KES AMSTA. Frontiers of Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 252, pp. 255–264. IOS Press (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Szałas, A.: Epistemic profiles and belief structures. In: Jezic, G., Kusek, M., Nguyen, N.-T., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES-AMSTA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7327, pp. 360–369. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Walther, D., Lutz, C., Wolter, F., Wooldridge, M.: ATL satisfiability is indeed EXPTIME-complete. Journal of Logic and Computation 16(6), 765–787 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dziubiński, M., Verbrugge, R., Dunin-Kęplicz, B.: Complexity issues in multiagent logics. Fundamenta Informaticae 75(1-4), 239–262 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fages, F.: Consistency of Clark’s completion and existence of stable models. Methods of Logic in Computer Science 1, 51–60 (1994)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    FIPA (2002),
  11. 11.
    Małuszyński, J., Szałas, A.: Living with Inconsistency and Taming Nonmonotonicity. In: de Moor, O., Gottlob, G., Furche, T., Sellers, A. (eds.) Datalog 2010. LNCS, vol. 6702, pp. 384–398. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Małuszyński, J., Szałas, A.: Partiality and Inconsistency in Agents’ Belief Bases. In: KES-AMSTA. Frontiers of Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 252, pp. 3–17. IOS Press (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mascardi, V., Demergasso, D., Ancona, D.: Languages for programming BDI-style agents: an overview. In: Corradini, F., De Paoli, F., Merelli, E., Omicini, A. (eds.) WOA 2005 - Workshop From Objects to Agents, pp. 9–15 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parsons, S., McBurney, P.: Argumentation-based dialogues for agent coordination. Group Decision and Negotiation 12, 415–439 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prakken, H.: Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21(2), 163–188 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Searle, J.R.: Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vitória, A., Małuszyński, J., Szałas, A.: Modeling and reasoning with paraconsistent rough sets. Fundamenta Informaticae 97(4), 405–438 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walton, D., Krabbe, E.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Rational interaction as the basis for communication. Technical Report 433, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA (1988)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaiser, M., Dillmann, R., Rogalla, O.: Communication as the basis for learning in multi-agent systems. In: ECAI 1996 Workshop on Learning in Distributed AI Systems (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paglieri, F., Castelfranchi, C.: Revising beliefs through arguments: Bridging the gap between argumentation and belief revision in MAS. In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, pp. 78–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Costantini, S.: Learning by knowledge exchange in logical agents. In: WOA 2005, Dagli (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mcburney, P., Parsons, S.: Tenacious Tortoises: A formalism for argument over rules of inference. In: Computational Dialectics (ECAI 2000 Workshop) (2000)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Singh, M.: A semantics for speech acts. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, pp. 47–71. Springer, Netherlands (1993) Print ISSN: 1012-2443Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Linder, B., Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J. C.: Actions that make you change your mind. In: KI 1995: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 98, pp. 185–196 (1995)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Prakken, H.: Modelling Reasoning about Evidence in Legal Procedure. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 119–128 (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Prakken, H.: Using Argument Schemes for Hypothetical Reasoning in Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18(2), 153–174 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gabbay, D., Hunter, A.: Making Inconsistency Respectable: A Logical Framework for Inconsistency in Reasoning, Part I - A Position Paper. In: Jorrand, P., Kelemen, J. (eds.) FAIR 1991. LNCS, vol. 535, pp. 19–32. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Winslett, M.: Updating logical databases. Cambridge University Press (1990)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., Porter, B.: Handbook of Knowledge Representation. Elsevier Science (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alferes, J.J., Leite, J.A., Pereira, L.M., Przymusinska, H., Przymusinski, T.C.: Dynamic Logic Programming. In: Procs. of the Sixth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Trento, Italy, pp. 98–109 (1998)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Alferes, J.J., Brogi, A., Leite, J., Moniz Pereira, L.: Evolving Logic Programs. In: Flesca, S., Greco, S., Leone, N., Ianni, G. (eds.) JELIA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2424, pp. 50–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Béziau, J.-Y., Carnielli, W.A., Gabbay, D.M.: Handbook of paraconsistency. College publications (2007)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F.: Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Dunin-Kęplicz
    • 1
  • Alina Strachocka
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of InformaticsUniversity of WarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations