1 / 19

Answer Set Programming for Information Agents

Answer Set Programming for Information Agents. Thomas Eiter and Michael Fink. Vienna University of Technology Knowledge-Based Systems Group. Answer Set Programming. Recent development in nonmonotonic reasoning Use (non-monotonic) logic programs for declarative problem solving

said
Télécharger la présentation

Answer Set Programming for Information Agents

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Answer Set Programming for Information Agents Thomas Eiter and Michael Fink Vienna University of Technology Knowledge-Based Systems Group

  2. Answer Set Programming • Recent development in nonmonotonic reasoning • Use (non-monotonic) logic programs for declarative problem solving • Method: • Represent the problem, P, by an (extended) logic program,P. • Compute some / all answer sets AS(P) of P • Extract some / all solutions S of P from some / all sets A in AS(P). Transformations P -> P , A -> S efficient

  3. ASP (2) • Related: Problem reduction to SAT solvers (chaff,…). • Difference to Prolog: • purely declarative: rule order, subgoal order irrelevant • nonmonotonic negation (also unstratified) • nondeterminism • Efficient ASP solvers are available (Smodels, DLV, ASSAT) • Useful tools / reasoning engines for domain-specific KR formalisms and problems

  4. Information Agents • Crucial in emerging (global) information systems. • Cooperation within societies of agents • Some kinds of agents: • Facilitators: control sub-agents and coordinate services • Brokers: Match between data sources / services and user requests • Mediators: Exploit meta-knowledge about provider agents to create higher-level services

  5. Information Agents (2) • Further infrastructure: • Yellow pages: info + matchmaking • Blackboards • Further auxiliary agents: • Web-Crawlers • Info-Raiders • ...

  6. Information Agents (3) • Desire: “Intelligent” Agents • Need: RationalCapabilities • inferences (deduction, abduction, …) • plausible conclusions • deal with incomplete / unsure / unreliable information • Exploit nonmonotonic formalisms & logics • Build task-tailored reasoningcomponents

  7. Information Agents (4) Prototypical Architecture:

  8. Information Agents (5) • Problems & Challenges: • decompose query requests • integrate query request & user profile • select information source • create & execute a query plan • compose / merge query answers • data cleaning • data integration: detect / resolve inconsistencies All using • (rich) domain knowledge • meta-knowledge about sources

  9. Query (XML-QL) XML Site1 Query (XML-QL) Information Agent XML Wrapper User Agent Site-Selection Capability Site2 XML Site3 Example Site Selection Task: Given a user query, select most relevant source. • Requires background knowledge (about application domain, information sources), • nonmonotonic reasoning due to incomplete information, • declarative semantics diserable.  use ASP [Eiter et al., KR’02].

  10. Example Movie Domain: information sources s1, s2, s3. Which movies are directed by Alfred Hitchcock? FUNCTIONHCMovies($MovieDB:"movie.dtd"){ CONSTRUCT <MovieList> {WHERE <MovieDB><Movie><Title> $t </Title> <Director><Personalia> <FirstName>"Alfred"</FirstName> <LastName>"Hitchcock"</LastName> </Personalia> </Director> </Movie></MovieDB> IN source($MovieDB) CONSTRUCT <Movie> $t </Movie> } </MovieList>} Known: s1 good for directors, s2 for person data, s3 not reliable. Expected: select s1.

  11. General Architecture Selected Site • Query Descriptionqd: Abstract representation of query. • Domain Theorydom: Domain specific background knowledge. • Site Descriptionsd: Information about the sources. • Site-Selection Programsel: Qualitative and quantitative selection rules and constraints; user preferences. Q, < parsing R(Q) qd dom sd Q sel, <u

  12. Abstract Query Description • Based on a general view of a query consisting of a construct part, a where part, and a source part. • Generated from a set of elementary facts R(Q) by application of program qd. • Relevant items identified with context-reference pairs (C,P), e.g., access(O,C,P,Q). • High-level description predicates: query(Q), access(O,C,P,Q), occurs(O,V), selects(O,C,V), constructs(O,C,P), joins(O1,O2,C).

  13. Example Program A site-selection program sel for the movie domain: • Core rulessel: r1: query_site(s2,Q)  default_object(O,”Person”,Q); r2: query_site(s1,Q)  selects(O,equal,”Hitchcock”), access(O,”Director”,”Personalia/LastName”,Q); r3: query_site(S,Q)  default_path(O,”LastName”,Q), default_object(O,T,Q), accurate(S,T,high); c

  14. Example Program (ctd.) aux • Auxiliary rulessel : r4: high_acc(T,Q)  access(O,T,P,Q), accurate(S,T,high); r5: high_cov(T,Q)  access(O,T,P,Q), covers(S,T,high); • Optimization rulessel: c1: query_site(S,Q), high_acc(T,Q), not accurate(S,T,high) [10:1]; c2:  query_site(S,Q), high_cov(T,Q), not covers(S,T,high) [5:1]; • User preferences <u: nr1(Q,_) <u nr3(Q,_,_,_). o

  15. Application • Implemented on top of dlv [Eiter et al. 1998] and its front end plp [Delgrande, Schaub, Tompits 2001]. • Agentized in IMPACT [Subrahmanian et al. 2000]. • Experimental site selection environment movie domain: • Modeled DTD from a set of relevant movie concepts captured by the Open Directory Project. • Wrapped parts of the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) and the EachMovie Database to XML; created 6 different databases.

  16. Application (ctd.) • Movie databases: • RandomMovies (RM), • RandomPersons (RP), • EachMovie (EM), • Hitchcock (HC), • KellyGrant (KG), • Horror60 (H60). • Site descriptions: contents, quality, cost, reliability,etc. • Domain knowledge: simple ontological knowledge from the DTD + some background knowledge. • Site selection program: (several pages of code).

  17. Experimental Queries Formulated a number of natural user queries, including: • Q1: Which movies were directed by Alfred Hitchcock? • Q2: In which movies directed by Josef von Sternberg acted Marlene Dietrich? • Q3: In which year has the movie “Arsenic and Old Lace” been released? • Q4: In which movies directed by Alfred Hitchcock acted Marlene Dietrich? • Q5: In which film noirs did Marilyn Monroe act? Modified selection base: adding/removing databases and their descriptions.

  18. Results Selection results satisfactory and explainable: • Specific core site selection rules trigger. • Domain knowledge identifies irrelevant or specific sites by • ontological reasoning, reasoning over genre info. etc, • Quantitative selection in case of equally preferred AS.

  19. Conclusion ASP is a new problem solving paradigm • applicable for many problems, • useful and promising for information agents. • IMPACT agents: reasonable status set semantics = answer set semantics. • Problem specific reasoning components on top of ASP, e.g., site selection. • Future work: • Tackle further problems of information agents (or related fields) where ASP approaches are promising. • Coupling of approaches with existing tools, e.g., for learning, planning, ontological reasoning, etc.

More Related