Handling negative assumptions in a generic user modeling framework

  • Wolfgang Pohl
Technical Papers-section 2
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1504)


Traditionally, there have been two approaches to powerful logic-based user modeling: First, in the modal logic approach, there is one knowledge base that consists of formulas of one (modal) logic formalism. Second, the partition approach divides the user model into partial knowl-edge bases, mainly to distinguish between different types of assumptions about the user. For the user modeling shell system BGP-MS an approach to integrate partitions with modal logic was developed and later refined to become the user model representation and reasoning framework As-TRa, which is also applicable in the more general case of agent modeling. In this framework, however, there is a representational gap between partitions and modal logic. A specific kind of user model contents, which we call negative assumptions, falls into this gap. Since negative assumptions have been quite frequently used with BGP-MS, we developed specialized mechanisms for dealing with them. This paper gives a brief overview of AsTRa, and formally presents the above-mentioned mechanisms. Like the whole AsTRa framework, they are semantically related to modal logic, which is proven.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [AOR92]
    J. Allgayer, H. J. Ohlbach, and C. Reddig. Modelling agents with logic. In Proc. of the Third International Workshop on User Modeling, pages 22–34, Dagstuhl, Germany, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. [Coh78]
    P. R. Cohen, On knowing what to say: Planning speech acts. Technical Report 118, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Canada, 1978.Google Scholar
  3. [HMGN91]
    X. Huang, G. I. McCalla, J. E. Greer, and E. Neufeld. Revising deductive knowledge and stereotypical knowledge in a student model. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 1(1):87–115, 1991.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [Hus94]
    U. Hustadt. A multi-modal logic for stereotyping. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on User Modeling, pages 87–92, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. [KMN94]
    A. Kobsa, D. Müller, and A. Nill. KN-AHS: An adaptive hypertext client of the user modeling system BGP-MS. In Proc. of the Fourth International Conference on User Modeling, pages 99–105, Hyannis, MA, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. [Kob85]
    A. Kobsa. Benutzermodellierung in Dialogsystemen. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1985.MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [Kob90]
    A. Kobsa. Modeling the user’s conceptual knowledge in BGP-MS, a user modeling shell system. Computational Intelligence, 6:193–208, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. [KP95]
    A. Kobsa and W. Pohl. The user modeling shell system BGP-MS. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4(2):59–106, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [Kri63]
    S. Kripke. Semantic considerations on modal logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 16:83–94, 1963.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. [PH97]
    W. Pohl and J. Höhle. Mechanisms for flexible representation and use of knowledge in user modeling shell systems. In A. Jameson, C. Paris, and C. Tasso, editors, User Modeling: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference, pages 403–414, Wien, New York, 1997. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. [PHFK95]
    W. Pohl, J. Höhle, J. Fink, and D.-W. Kim. Building adaptive applications on widely-used platforms with BGP-MS. In C. Stephanidis, editor, Proc. ERCIM Workshop “Towards User Interfaces for All: Current Efforts and Future Trends”, Heraklion, Greece, October 1995.Google Scholar
  12. [Poh96]
    W. Pohl. Combining partitions and modal logic for user modeling. In D. M. Gabbay and H. J. Ohlbach, editors, Practical Reasoning: Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning pages 480–494, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1996. Springer.Google Scholar
  13. [Poh97]
    W. Pohl. Logic-Based Representation and Reasoning for User Modeling Shell Systems. PhD thesis, University of Essen, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Pohl

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations