Search results

The purpose of this paper is to consider the logical specification, and automated verification, of high‐level robotic behaviours.

The paper uses temporal logic as a formal language for providing abstractions of foraging robot behaviour, and successively extends this to multiple robots, items of food for the robots to collect, and constraints on the real‐time behaviour of robots. For each of these scenarios, proofs of relevant properties are carried out in a fully automated way. In addition to automated deductive proofs in propositional temporal logic, the possibility of having arbitrary numbers of robots involved is considered, thus allowing representations of robot swarms. This leads towards the use of first‐order temporal logics (FOTLs).

The proofs of many properties are achieved using automatic deductive temporal provers for the propositional and FOTLs.

Many details of the problem, such as location of the robots, avoidance, etc. are abstracted away.

Large robot swarms are beyond the current capability of propositional temporal provers. Whilst representing and proving properties of arbitrarily large swarms using FOTLs is feasible, the representation of infinite numbers of pieces of food is outside of the decidable fragment of FOTL targeted, and practically, the provers struggle with even small numbers of pieces of food.

The work described in this paper is novel in that it applies automatic temporal theorem provers to proving properties of robotic behaviour.

The purpose of this paper is to apply the quantum “eigenlogic” formulation to behavioural analysis. Agents, represented by Braitenberg vehicles, are investigated in the context of the quantum robot paradigm. The agents are processed through quantum logical gates with fuzzy and multivalued inputs; this permits to enlarge the behavioural possibilities and the associated decisions for these simple vehicles.

In eigenlogic, the eigenvalues of the observables are the truth values and the associated eigenvectors are the logical interpretations of the propositional system. Logical observables belong to families of commuting observables for binary logic and many-valued logic. By extension, a fuzzy logic interpretation is proposed by using vectors outside the eigensystem of the logical connective observables. The fuzzy membership function is calculated by the quantum mean value (Born rule) of the logical projection operators and is associated to a quantum probability. The methodology of this paper is based on quantum measurement theory.

Fuzziness arises naturally when considering systems described by state vectors not in the considered logical eigensystem. These states correspond to incompatible and complementary systems outside the realm of classical logic. Considering these states allows the detection of new Braitenberg vehicle behaviours related to identified emotions; these are linked to quantum-like effects.

The method does not deal at this stage with first-order logic and is limited to different families of commuting logical observables. An extension to families of logical non-commuting operators associated to predicate quantifiers could profit of the “quantum advantage” due to effects such as superposition, parallelism, non-commutativity and entanglement. This direction of research has a variety of applications, including robotics.

The goal of this research is to show the multiplicity of behaviours obtained by using fuzzy logic along with quantum logical gates in the control of simple Braitenberg vehicle agents. By changing and combining different quantum control gates, one can tune small changes in the vehicle’s behaviour and hence get specific features around the main basic robot’s emotions.

New mathematical formulation for propositional logic based on linear algebra. This methodology demonstrates the potentiality of this formalism for behavioural agent models (quantum robots).

In the field of crime prevention there are several theoretical approaches explaining why crime occurs and how to prevent it. Three of them – routine activity theory, crime pattern theory and the theory of crime-as-choice – are logically tested in this work. The point of departure is to test if the theories are logical consistent and logical valid, irrespective of whether the criterion for criminal intent is changed from direct intention to negligence.

The issues will be explored in a logical structure by a first-order logic propositional analysis.

The analysis shows that all three theories are logical consistent, but only routine activity theory is logical valid. The conclusion is that crime prevention should in general assume that routine activity theory is the legitimate theory and that social prevention as a prevention strategy is logically unnecessary to adopt because it does not matter whether the offender is motivated (direct intention) or not (negligence).

It does not really matter if the authors theoretically treat white-collar offenders as motivated, because if they have committed an actus reus, they are an offender according to the objective requisites. This means that the best strategies to prevent a potential white-collar criminal are situational prevention, i.e. complicate their access to money, where it becomes irrelevant if the potential offender has a mens rea or not. What counts is the prevention of actus reus by a potential offender.

As far as I know, no one has previously investigated the logical consistency and/or logical validity of routine activity theory, crime pattern theory and the theory of crime-as-choice as theories of crime prevention.

The development of web information systems has led to new challenges regarding the scalability and expressiveness of methods. In particular, as systems become large, it becomes decisive to guarantee consistency and integrity of designs. The paper introduces the challenges in a step‐by‐step way and indicates how to cope with them. First, the conceptual model of a WIS as a collection of media types, i.e. extended views, is introduced. In this context the adaptivity to users, channels and devices will also be discussed. Secondly, WIS development is discussed on a higher level of abstraction dealing with tasks, roles, user profiles and storyboards. At this level equational reasoning can be applied. Finally, both levels of abstraction are combined leading to further challenges by using dynamic and deontic logics.

An integral part of declarative process modelling is to guarantee that the execution of a declarative workflow is compliant with the respective business rules. The purpose of this paper is to establish a formal framework for representing business rules and determining whether any business rules are violated during the executions of declarative process models.

In the approach, a business rule is phrased in terms of restricted English that is related to a constraint template. Linear temporal logic (LTL) is employed as a formalism for defining the set of constraint templates. By exploiting the theorem-proving feature of the Logics Workbench (LWB), business rule violations are then detected in an automatic manner.

This study explored the viability of encoding: first, process executions by means of LTL and second, business rules in terms of restricted English that built upon pattern-oriented templates and LTL. The LWB was used for carrying out temporal reasoning through automated techniques. The applicability of the formal verification approach was exemplified by a case study concerning supply chain management. The findings showed that practical reasoning could be achieved by combining declarative process modelling, restricted English, pattern-oriented templates, LTL and LWB.

First, new business rule templates are proposed; second, business rules are expressed in restricted English instead of graphical constructs; third, both finite execution trace and business rules are grounded in LTL. There is no need to deal with the semantic differences between different formalisms; and finally, the theorem prover LWB is used for the conformance checking of a finite execution trace against business rules.

The literature on abstracts recommends the revision of author supplied abstracts before their inclusion in database collections. However, little guidance is given on how to carry out such revision, and few studies exist on this topic. The purpose of this research paper is to first survey 187 bibliographic databases to ascertain how many did revise abstracts, and then study the practical amendments made by one of these, i.e. LISA (Library and Information Science Abstracts).

Database policies were established by e‐mail or through alternative sources, with 136 databases out of 187 exhaustively documented. Differences between 100 author‐supplied abstracts and the corresponding 100 LISA amended abstracts were classified into sentence‐level and beyond sentence‐level categories, and then as additions, deletions and rephrasing of text.

Revision of author abstracts was carried out by 66 databases, but in just 32 cases did it imply more than spelling, shortening of length and formula representation. In LISA, amendments were often non‐systematic and inconsistent, but still pointed to significant aspects which were discussed.

Amendments made by LISA editors are important in multi‐ and inter‐disciplinary research, since they tend to clarify certain aspects such as terminology, and suggest that abstracts should not always be considered as substitutes for the original document. From this point‐of‐view, the revision of abstracts can be considered as an important factor in enhancing a database's quality.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the extent to which formal logic can be applied to conflict analysis and resolution. It is motivated by the idea that conflicts can be understood as inconsistent sets of interests.

A simple propositional model, based on propositional logic, which can be used to analyze conflicts, has been introduced and four algorithms have been presented to generate possible solutions to a conflict. The model is illustrated by applying it to the conflict between the Obama administration and the Syrian Government in September 2013 over the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons programme.

The author shows how different solutions, such as compromises, minimally invasive solutions or solutions compatible with certain pre-defined norms, can be generated by the model. It is shown how the model can operate in situations where the game-theoretic model fails due to a lack of information about the parties’ utility values.

The model can be used as a theoretical framework for future experimental research and/or to trace the course of particular conflict scenarios.

The model can be used as the basis for building software applications for conflict resolution practitioners, such as negotiators or mediators.

While the idea of using logic to analyse the structure of conflicts and generate possible solutions is not new to the field of conflict studies, the model presented in this paper provides a novel way of understanding conflicts for both researchers and practitioners.

The starting point of this paper is the propositional model of conflict resolution which was presented and critically discussed in Lempp (2016). Based on this model, a software implementation, called ProCON, is introduced and applied to three scenarios. The purpose of the paper is to demonstrate how ProCON can be used by negotiators and to evaluate ProCON’s practical usefulness as an automated negotiation support system.

The propositional model is implemented as a computer program. The implementation consists of an input module to enter data about a negotiation situation, an output module to generate outputs (e.g. a list of all incompatible goal pairs or a graph displaying the compatibility relations between goals) and a queries module to run queries on particular aspects of a negotiation situation.

The author demonstrates how ProCON can be used to capture a simple two-party, non-iterative prisoner’s dilemma, applies ProCON to a contract negotiation between a supplier and a purchaser of goods, and uses it to model the negotiations between the Iranian and six Western governments over Iran’s nuclear enrichment and stockpiling capacities.

A limitation of the current version of ProCON arises from the fact that the computational complexity of the underlying algorithm is EXPTIME (i.e. the computing time required to process information in ProCON grows exponentially with respect to the number of issues fed into the program). This means that computing time can be quite long for even relatively small negotiation scenarios.

The three case studies demonstrate how ProCON can provide support for negotiators in a wide range of multi-party, multi-issue negotiations. In particular, ProCON can be used to visualise the compatibility relations between parties’ goals, generate possible outcomes and solutions and evaluate solutions regarding the extent to which they satisfy the parties’ goals.

In contrast to standard game-theoretic models of negotiation, ProCON does not require users to provide data about their preferences across their goals. Consequently, it can operate in situations where no information about the parties’ goal preferences is available. Compared to game-theoretical models, ProCON represents a more general approach of looking at possible outcomes in the context of negotiations.

Purpose – There has been very little development of the capacity of dialectical logic during the last hundred years or so, while the capacity of post-Cartesian analytical logics has expanded greatly in response to efforts to understand more and more complex theoretical and empirical problems, though still within the limits of analytical strictures such as externality of relations and the principle of the excluded middle. This chapter pursues relative lines of development in analytical and dialectical logic.

Design/methodology/approach – After presenting as background a congeries of personal experiences, reflections, and reviews, the chapter addresses some of the lessons relating to the neglect of dialectical logic (e.g., the notion of contradiction as error, and the idealization that is condition to it), in order to work toward some clarifications, developments, and challenges of dialectical logic (past, present, and future). Along the way providing comparisons with analytical logic, the emphasis will be on the contributions of several theorists, including Adorno, Marx, and Habermas.

Findings – Some illustrations of under- and undeveloped capacity are proposed with regard to dialectical-conceptual formations of identity/difference relations, unity of opposites, and quality/quantity relations, as well as contradiction as condition and as consequence of processes wherein various realities are produced. A number of challenges are outlined, with an invitation to scholars to pursue better development of the power of dialectical logic.

Research limitations/implications – An unduly defensive posture against perceived threats from both analytics and empirics (experiences of world) has surely been part of the obstacle to advancing dialectical logic, though one should not underestimate the resistances stemming from poor institutional-disciplinary support for the risk-taking activities required for innovation and development.

Originality/value – Dialectical logic is important to investigations of process dynamics in a number of ways, most especially insofar as contradiction is a major driver of processes, in particular processes that tend to follow trajectories that from the perspective of analytical logic are unexpected and/or illogical; for dialectical logic takes the event of contradiction as not merely indicative of error in the process of propositional reasoning but instead or also as an outcome of specifiable sequences of structurally conditioned behaviors, actions, and chains of effects at supra-individual levels of the production of realities.