1 / 29

Modelling uncertainty in 3APL

Explore how to model uncertainty in 3APL agent beliefs using Dempster-Shafer theory, reduce computational complexity, and prototype implementation. Discuss Bayesian networks and reasoning with uncertainty methods.

bwilbanks
Download Presentation

Modelling uncertainty in 3APL

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. Modelling uncertainty in 3APL Johan KwisthoutMaster Thesis j.kwisthout@student.kun.nl

  2. Motivation and Background • 3APL uses logical formulae to represent and reason with agent beliefs which are either true or false, e.g.whether(rain)  temperature(low) • However, in practice agents are confronted with uncertainty, e.g. ‘the chance or rain tomorrow is 70%’ • How can we model this uncertainty in 3APL

  3. Layout • Introduction to 3APL • Reasoning with uncertainty • Dempster-Shafer theory • Mapping Dempster-Shafer theory to logical formulae • Reducing computational complexity • Querying and updating • Prototype implementation • Conclusion and further research

  4. Introduction to 3APL • Agent programming language using beliefs, desires (goals) and intentions • Basic actions revise belief base • Practical reasoning rules reason on the goals and revise them {precondition} BasicAction {postcondition} {door_closed} OpenDoor {door_opened} Goals  guardNewGoals TakeBus  bus_strikeTakeTaxi Concentrate on belief query and update

  5. Evidence: there is a bomb on location 3, with a certainty of 70% This could be denoted with a belief formula and a probability: b(3) : 0.7 But what does this exactly mean? • A mine-sweeper type of game with four locations 1 SAFE 2 BOMB 3 BOMB? 4 SAFE Reasoning with uncertainty

  6. With four locations, we have 16 possible worlds: s(1)  s(2)  s(3)  s(4) … b(1)  b(2)  b(3)  b(4) b(3) has a set of models, possible worlds in which b(3) is true Evidence of 0.7 that one of these is the actual world Reasoning with uncertainty

  7. Reasoning with uncertainty • Various methods available: • Bayesian networks • Dempster-Shafer theory • Fuzzy Logic systems • Ad-hoc implementations (e.g. MYCIN certainty factors)

  8. Bayesian Networks • Network with nodes (variables) and causal relations between them • Models causal structures: IF flu, THEN headache AND fever

  9. Bayesian Networks • Drawbacks: - All conditional probabilities must be known beforehand - Causal structure does not really fit in with 3APL belief structure - Statically vs. dynamic - No ignorance modeling possible

  10. Frame of discernment Ω: set of hypotheses relevant to this domain Mass function assigns a value  0 to every subset of Ω such that If no information is available, m(Ω) = 1 and m(X) = 0 for X  Ω For example: Dempster-Shafer theory

  11. Dempster-Shafer theory A simple support function has evidence for only one set of hypotheses, for example This is not a simple support function because it has evidence for more than one set of hypotheses

  12. Dempster-Shafer theory Belief function is defined to denote the probability of a set

  13. Separate pieces of evidence can be combined using Dempster’s Rule of Combination Dempster-Shafer theory

  14. D/S theory and agent beliefs Consider the basic belief formula b(3):0.7. This basic belief formula could be modeled in Dempster-Shafer theory as follows: With X ²W b(3) denoting, that b(3) is the maximal subset of hypotheses in Ω that are models of b(3)

  15. D/S theory and agent beliefs Y is the maximal subset of hypotheses from Ω that are models of b(3) = {H3,H4,H7,H8,H11,H12,H15,H16}

  16. Each logical formula in the belief base can be represented by a mass function b(3):0.7  Multiple beliefs can be represented by the combination of these mass functions b(3):0.7  s(2):0.2  mb(3)  ms(2) D/S theory and agent beliefs

  17. However, Dempster’s Rule of Combination leads to a combinatorial explosion Combining k mass functions leads to a mass function with 2kseparate clauses… …but this can be reduced with restrictions on the frame of discernment and on the mass functions D/S theory and agent beliefs

  18. Dempsters Rule of Combination can be simplified to If: The frame of discernment Ω is such that the combination of any mass function leads to a non-empy subset of Ω, and The mass functions that represent the belief formulae are simple support functions Simplifying combination rule

  19. Mass calculation Using this simplified rule, the mass value of any clause in the combination of the mass functions that represent the basic belief formulae in the belief base can be computed using the probabilities of that basic belief formulae, without having to calculate the complete combined mass function and therefore without having a combinatorial explosion.

  20. Belief base b(1):p1 b(2):p2 s(3):p3 Mass function mb(1)  mb(2) ms(3) Mass calculation m123(X ²W b1b2) = mb1(X ²W b1)  mb2(X ²W b2) ms3(X = ) = p1  p2  (1 – p3) Because (X ²W b1b2) = (X ²W b1)  (X ²W b2)  (X = )

  21. Belief base b(1):p1 b(2):p2+p4-(p2p4) s(3):p3 Mass function mb(1)  (mb(2) mb(2)’)ms(3) Belief base b(1):p1 b(2):p2 s(3):p3 Mass function mb(1)  mb(2) ms(3) Belief base b(1):p1 b(2):p2 s(3):p3 s(4):p4 Belief base b(1):p1 b(2):p2 s(3):p3 b(2):p4 Mass function mb(1)  mb(2) ms(3) ms(4) Mass function mb(1)  mb(2)ms(3) mb(2)’ Updating the belief base Update the belief base by just adding that belief formula, or recalculating the belief using Dempsters Rule of Combination

  22. Query if a formula is deductible within a certain range by calculating the Belief value A formula fis deductible from a belief base BB with a certainty of Bel(mBB(X ²Wf)) where mBB is the combination of all mass functions that represent basic belief formulae in the belief base Querying the belief base

  23. Belief base b(1):p1 b(2):p2 s(3):p3 Mass function MBB = mb(1)  mb(2) ms(3) Querying the belief base For example, we can calculate in how far b1 b2 is deductible from BB by calculating Bel(mBB(X ²W b1 b2))

  24. Prototype implementation • Algorithms implemented in Prolog, using interaction clauses for pre-condition, post-condition and guards • 3APL interpreter uses Prolog Engine for logical reasoning • With ‘real’ implementation, also graphical user interface needs to be adapted etc.

  25. Prototype implementation ?- add_fact(b1,0.4).Yes ?- add_fact(b2,0.6).Yes ?- add_fact(and(b2,b3),0.2).Yes ?- add_fact(or(b3,and(b3,b1)),0.3).Yes ?- show. b1, 0.4b2, 0.6and(b2, b3), 0.2or(b3, and(b3, b1)), 0.3

  26. Prototype implementation ?- show. b1, 0.4b2, 0.6and(b2, b3), 0.2or(b3, and(b3, b1)), 0.3 ?- support(or(b1,b2)).0.808 ?- pre(or(b1,b2),[0.6,0.9]).Yes ?- pre(or(b1,b2),[0.9,1.0]).No

  27. Prototype implementation ?- post([[and(b5,b2),0.2]]). Yes ?- show.b1, 0.4b2, 0.6and(b2, b3), 0.2or(b3, and(b3, b1)), 0.3and(b5, b2), 0.2 ?- support(or(b1,b2)).0.8464

  28. Dempster-Shafer theory is a convenient method to model uncertainty in 3APL Computational complexity can be controlled Efficient algorithm for calculating Bel(X) to be designed Some theoretical questions to be addressed (e.g. closed world assumption in relation to combination rule) Conclusion and further work

  29. Questions?

More Related