Advertisement

A unified framework for hypothetical and practical reasoning (1): Theoretical foundations

  • S. K. Das
  • J. Fox
  • P. Krause
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1085)

Abstract

We describe here a general and flexible framework for decision making which embodies the concepts of beliefs, goals, options, arguments and commitments. We have employed these concepts to build a generic decision support system which has been successfully applied in a number of areas in clinical medicine. In this paper, we present the formalisation of the decision making architecture within a framework of modal propositional logics. A possible-world semantics of the logic is developed and the soundness and completeness result is also established.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. H. Bonczek, C. W. Holsapple, and A. B. Whinston. Development in decision support systems. Advances in Computers, 23:123–154, 1984.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Bradley and N. Swartz. Possible Worlds. Basil Blackwell, 1979.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Chellas. Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. A. Clark, J. Fox, A. J. Glowinski, and M. J. O'Neil. Symbolic reasoning for decision making. In K. Borcherding, O. I. Larichev, and D. M. Messick, editors, Contemporary Issues in Decision Making, pages 57–75. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. (North-Holland), 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. R. Cohen and H. Levesque. Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence, 42, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. K. Das. Deductive Databases and Logic Programming. Addison-Wesley, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. K. Das. A logical reasoning with preference. Decision Support Systems, 15:19–25, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. K. Das and D. Elsdon. R 2L. Technical Report RED/ QMW/ WP/ 740/ 1/ 4, QMW, University of London, London, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. K. Das, J. Fox, P. Hammond, and D. Elsdon. A flexible architecture for autonomous agents, revised version is being considered by JETAI, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. K. Das and P. Hammond. Managing tasks using an interval-based temporal logic. Journal of Applied Intelligence, in press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Fagin and J. Y. Halpern. Belief, awareness and limited reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 34:39–76, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Fox and S. K. Das. A unified framework for hypothetical and practical reasoning (2): lessons from medical applications. In Proceeding of FAPR, June 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Fox, S. K. Das, and D. Elsdon. Decision making and planning in autonomous systems: theory, technology and applications. In Proceedings of the ECAI Workshop on Decision Theory for DAI Applications, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Y. Halpern and Y. O. Moses. A guide to the modal logics of knowledge and belief. In Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 480–490, 1985.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. J. Krause, S. J. Ambler, M. Elvang-Goransson, and J. Fox. A logic of argumentation for uncertain reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 11, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. A. Kripke. Semantical analysis of modal logic I: normal modal propositional calculi. ZMLGM, 9:67–96, 1963.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. J. Lemmon. An Introduction to Modal Logic. Basil Blackwell, 1977.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J.-J. Ch. Meyer, W. van der Hoek, and G. A. W. Vreeswijk. Epistemic logic for computer science: a tutorial (part one). EATCS, 44:242–270, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Wainer. Yet another semantics of goals and goal priorities. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 269–273, August 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. K. Das
    • 1
  • J. Fox
    • 2
  • P. Krause
    • 2
  1. 1.William Penney LaboratoryImperial CollegeLondon
  2. 2.Advanced Computation LaboratoryICRFLondon

Personalised recommendations