Recently, (Dunne et al. 2009; 2011) have suggested to weight attacks within Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks, and introduced the concept of WAF (Weighted Argumentation Framework). However, they use WAFs in a very specific way for relaxing attacks. The aim of this paper is to explore ways to take advantage of attacks weights within an argumentation process. Two different approaches are considered: The first one extends the proposal by (Dunne et al. 2011) and accounts for other aggregation functions than sum in the objective of relaxing attacks. The second one shows how weights can be exploited to strengthen the usual notion of defence, leading to new concepts of extensions.

Successful analysis of video data requires an integration of techniques from KR, Computer Vision, and Machine Learning. Being able to detect and to track objects as well as extracting their changing spatial relations with other objects is one approach to describing and detecting events. Different kinds of spatial relations are important, including topology, direction, size, and distance between objects as well as changes of those relations over time. Typically these kinds of relations are treated separately, which makes it difficult to integrate all the extracted spatial information. We present a uniform and comprehensive spatial representation of moving objects that includes all the above spatial/temporal aspects, analyse different properties of this representation and demonstrate that it is suitable for video analysis.

In order to meet usability requirements, most logic-based applications provide explanation facilities for reasoning services. This holds also for DLs, where research has focused on the explanation of both TBox reasoning and, more recently, query answering. Besides explaining the presence of a tuple in a query answer, it is important to explain also why a given tuple is missing. We address the latter problem for (conjunctive) query answering over DL-Lite ontologies, by adopting abductive reasoning, that is, we look for additions to the ABox that force a given tuple to be in the result. As reasoning taskswe consider existence and recognition of an explanation, and relevance and necessity of a certain assertion for an explanation. We characterize the computational complexity of these problems for subset minimal and cardinality minimal explanations.

Argumentation is a human-like reasoning mechanism contributing to the formalization of commonsense reasoning. In the last decade, several argument-based formalisms have emerged, with application in many areas, such as legal reasoning, autonomous agents and multi-agent systems; many are based on Dung’s seminal work characterizing Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AF). Recent research in the area has led to Temporal Argumentation Frameworks (TAF) that extend Dung’s by considering the temporal availability of arguments. In this work we introduce a novel framework, called Extended Temporal Argumentation Framework (E-TAF), extending TAF with the capability of modeling availability of attacks among arguments, which allows for instance to model reliability of arguments varying over time. We show how E-TAF can be enriched by considering Structured Abstract Argumentation, adding compositional elements to the abstract arguments involved based on a simplified version of the recently introduced Dynamic Argumentation Frameworks.

We present a system capable of automatically solving combinatorial logic puzzles given in (simplified) English. It uses an ontology to represent the puzzles in ASP which is applicable to a large set of logic puzzles. To translate the English descriptions of the puzzles into this ontology, we use a lambda-calculus based approach using Probabilistic Combinatorial Categorial Grammars (PCCG) where the meanings of words are associated with parameters to be able to distinguish between multiple meanings of the same word.

Unification in Description Logics (DLs) has been proposed as an inference service that can, for example, be used to detect redundancies in ontologies. The inexpressive Description Logic EL is of particular interest in this context since, on the one hand, several large biomedical ontologies are defined using EL. On the other hand, unification in EL has recently been shown to be NP-complete, and thus of significantly lower complexity than unification in other DLs of similarly restricted expressive power. However, the unification algorithms for EL developed so far cannot deal with general concept inclusion axioms (GCIs). This paper makes a considerable step towards addressing this problem, but the GCIs our new unification algorithm can deal with still need to satisfy a certain cycle restriction.

In this paper, we study the problem of exchanging knowledge between a source and a target knowledge base (KB), connected through mappings. Differently from the traditional database exchange setting, which considers only the exchange of data, we are interested in exchanging implicit knowledge. As representation formalism we use Description Logics (DLs), thus assuming that the source and target KBs are given as a DL TBox+ABox, while the mappings have the form of DL TBox assertions. We study the problem of translating the knowledge in the source KB according to these mappings. We define a general framework of KB exchange, and address the problems of representing implicit source information in the target, and of computing different kinds of solutions, i.e., target KBs with specified properties, given a source KB and a mapping. We develop first results and study the complexity of KB exchange for DL-Lite_RDFS, a DL corresponding to the FOL fragment of RDFS, and for DL-Lite_R.

In this paper, we present an alternative to the Turing Test that has some conceptual and practical advantages. A Winograd schema is a pair of sentences that differ only in one or two words and that contain a referential ambiguity that is resolved in opposite directions in the two sentences. We have compiled a collection of Winograd schemas, designed so that the correct answer is obvious to the human reader, but cannot easily be found using selectional restrictions or statistical techniques over text corpora. A contestant in the Winograd Schema Challenge is presented with a collection of one sentence from each pair, and required to achieve human-level accuracy in choosing the correct disambiguation.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a fully-declarative logic programming paradigm, which has been proposed in the area of knowledge representation and non-monotonic reasoning. Nowadays, the formal properties of ASP are well-understood, efficient ASP systems are available, and, recently, ASP has been employed in a few industrial applications. However, ASP technology is not mature for a successful exploitation in industry yet; mainly because ASP technologies are not integrated in the well-assessed development processes and platforms which are tailored for imperative/object-oriented programming languages. In this paper we present a new programming framework blending ASP with Java. The framework is based on JASP, an hybrid language that transparently supports a bilateral interaction between ASP and Java. JASP specifications are compliant with the JPA standard to perfectly fit extensively-adopted enterprise application technologies. The framework also encompasses an implementation of JASP as a plug-in for the Eclipse platform, called JDLV, which includes a compiler from JASP to Java. Moreover, we show a real-world application developed with JASP and JDLV, which highlights the effectiveness of our ASP–Java integration framework.

A bipolar framework is introduced for combining agents' beliefs so as to enable them to reach a common shared position or viewpoint. Our approach exploits the truth-gaps inherent to propositions involving vague concepts, by allowing agents to soften directly conflicting opinions. To this end we adopt a bipolar truth-model for propositional logic characterised by lower and upper valuations on the sentences of the language. According to this model sentences may be absolutely true, absolutely false or borderline (i.e. neither absolutely true nor absolutely false). The added flexibility of a possible truth-gap between absolutely true and absolutely false allows agents with inconsistent viewpoints, in which a proposition p is absolutely true according to one view and absolutely false according to the other, to reach a compromise position in which p is borderline. Within this framework four combination operators are proposed for combining different viewpoints as represented by different valuation pairs. Intuitively, these correspond to compromise positions with different levels of semantic precision (or vagueness). Kleene belief pairs are then introduced as lower and upper measures quantifying epistemic uncertainty about the sentences of the language when valuation pairs provide the underlying truth model. The combination operators on valuation pairs are then extended to belief pairs using a general schema incorporating a probabilistic model of the interaction between agents. The properties of the four operators are then investigated within this extended framework.