Combining expert-based beliefs and answer sets | Applied Intelligence Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Combining expert-based beliefs and answer sets

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a declarative knowledge representation language that uses a non-monotonic reasoning mechanism to search for all answer sets or models of a specific problem. This makes it suitable for problem-solving activities, such as expertise, where there is lack of knowledge, and where defeasible reasoning is required. However, this language is not equipped with a means to select a preferred model among its answer sets as done by experts in expertise processes. Clearly, in expertise processes, experts who have acquired knowledge from their experience will express possible explanations and based on their beliefs and reasoning, will select the most appropriate ones for the problem.

To have the best of both ASP and human expert knowledge in expertise process activities, we propose and illustrate a general and domain-independent framework that extends ASP using experts’ knowledge and belief functions to systematically draw explanations for expertise activities. This extension provides a means to evaluate ASP models’ beliefs using experts’ evidence distributions, while reducing the knowledge-intensive load of the expertise process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/basic-search

  2. https://scholar.google.fr/

References

  1. Shaw M LG, Gaines B R (2005) Expertise and expert systems: emulating psychological processes

  2. Peyrouty H L P P T M, Chanay F (2011) Recommandations pour l’application de la norme nf x 50-110:2003 Association Française de Normalisation

  3. Lu Y-J, He J (2017) Dempster-shafer evidence theory and study of some key problems, Infinite Study

  4. Baporikar N (2020) Learning link in organizational tacit knowledge creation and dissemination. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IJSKD) 12(4):70–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Riedl M O (2019) Human-centered artificial intelligence and machine learning. Hum Behav Emerg Technol 1(1):33–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fandinno J, Schulz C (2019) Answering the “why”? in answer set programming–a survey of explanation approaches. Theory Pract Log Progr 19(2):114–203

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Gebser M, Kaminski R, Kaufmann B, Schaub T (2012) Answer set solving in practice. Synth Lect Artif Intell Mach Learn 6(3):1–238

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Shen Y-D, Eiter T Determining inference semantics for disjunctive logic programs (extended abstract)

  9. Dodaro C, Maratea M (2017) Nurse scheduling via answer set programming. In: International conference on logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning, Springer, pp 301–307

  10. Gebser M, Kaufmann B, Kaminski R, Ostrowski M, Schaub T, Schneider M (2011) Potassco: The potsdam answer set solving collection. Ai Communications 24(2):107–124

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Janssen J, Schockaert S, Vermeir D, De Cock M (2012) Answer set programming for continuous domains: A fuzzy logic approach, Springer Science & Business Media, vol 5

  12. Kakas A C (1994) Default reasoning via negation as failure. Springer

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Riguzzi F (2018) Foundations of probabilistic logic programming, River Publishers

  14. Niemelä I (1999) Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Ann Math Artif Intell 25(3):241–273

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Reineking T (2014) Belief functions: theory and algorithms, Ph.D. Thesis, Universität Bremen

  16. Yager R R, Liu L (2008) Classic works of the dempster-shafer theory of belief functions, Springer, vol 219

  17. Shafer G (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence, Princeton university press, vol 42

  18. Liu L, Yager R R (2008) Classic works of the dempster-shafer theory of belief functions: An introduction, Springer

  19. Shafer G (1986) Probability judgment in artificial intelligence, vol 4, Elsevier

  20. Lefevre E (2012) Habilitation a diriger des recherches universite d’artois

  21. Barley W C, Treem J W, Leonardi P M (2020) Experts at coordination: Examining the performance, production, and value of process expertise. J Commun 70(1):60–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chudnoff E (2021) Two kinds of cognitive expertise. Noûs 55(2):270–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Al Machot F, Mayr H C, Ranasinghe S (2018) A hybrid reasoning approach for activity recognition based on answer set programming and dempster–shafer theory. Springer

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Bauters K, Schockaert S, De Cock M, Vermeir D (2012) Possible and necessary answer sets of possibilistic answer set programs. In: 2012 IEEE 24th International conference on tools with artificial intelligence, vol 1, IEEE, pp 836–843

  25. Nicolas P, Garcia L, Stéphan I, Lefèvre C (2006) Possibilistic uncertainty handling for answer set programming. Ann Math Artif Intell 47(1):139–181

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Núñez R C, Murthi M N, Premaratne K, Scheutz M, Bueno O (2018) Uncertain logic processing: logic-based inference and reasoning using dempster–shafer models. Int J Approx Reason 95:1–21

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Bauters K, Schockaert S, De Cock M, Vermeir D (2010) Possibilistic answer set programming revisited. In: UAI 2010, Proceedings of the twenty-sixth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, Catalina Island, CA, USA, July 8-11, 2010, pp 48–55

  28. Núnez R C, Scheutz M, Premaratne K, Murthi M N (2013) Modeling uncertainty in first-order logic: a dempster-shafer theoretic approach. In: 8th International symposium on imprecise probability: theories and applications

  29. Malo A, Villeneuve E, Martinez O, Geneste L (2013) Consolidation des données statistiques par expertise et similarité pour la prévision des ventes. In: QUALITA2013

  30. Lloyd J W (2012) Foundations of logic programming, Springer Science & Business Media

  31. Sowa K, Przegalinska A, Ciechanowski L (2021) Cobots in knowledge work: Human ai collaboration in managerial professions. J Bus Res 125:135–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bettoni A, Montini E, Righi M, Villani V, Tsvetanov R, Borgia S, Secchi C, Carpanzano E (2020) Mutualistic and adaptive human-machine collaboration based on machine learning in an injection moulding manufacturing line. Procedia CIRP 93:395–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Baroroh D K, Chu C-H, Wang L (2020) Systematic literature review on augmented reality in smart manufacturing: Collaboration between human and computational intelligence

  34. Sounchio S, Geneste L, Foguem B K (2021) Hybridation de l’answer set programming et de la théorie de dempster shafer

  35. Xu Z (2012) Linguistic decision making, Springer

  36. Xu Z (2005) Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making. Omega 33(3):249–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pang Q, Wang H, Xu Z (2016) Probabilistic linguistic term sets in multi-attribute group decision making. Inf Sci 369:128–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Liao H, Xu Z, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F (2018) Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set and its application in decision making: a state-of-the-art survey. Int J Fuzzy Syst 20(7):2084–2110

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  39. Saibene A, Assale M, Giltri M (2021) Expert systems: definitions, advantages and issues in medical field applications. Expert Syst Appl 177:114900

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Production Engineering Laboratory/UFTMiP, 47, Avenue d’Azereix, BP 1629, 65016, Tarbes Cedex, France

    Serge Sonfack Sounchio, Laurent Geneste & Bernard Kamsu Foguem

Authors
  1. Serge Sonfack Sounchio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laurent Geneste
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bernard Kamsu Foguem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Laurent Geneste or Bernard Kamsu Foguem.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sounchio, S.S., Geneste, L. & Foguem, B.K. Combining expert-based beliefs and answer sets. Appl Intell 53, 2694–2705 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-022-03669-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-022-03669-z

Keywords