Bridging abstract dialectical argumentation and Boolean gene regulation
Authors:
Eugenio Azpeitia,
Stan Muñoz Gutiérrez,
David A. Rosenblueth,
Octavio Zapata
Abstract:
This paper leans on two similar areas so far detached from each other. On the one hand, Dung's pioneering contributions to abstract argumentation, almost thirty years ago, gave rise to a plethora of successors, including abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs). On the other hand, Boolean networks (BNs), devised as models of gene regulation, have been successful for studying the behavior of molecula…
▽ More
This paper leans on two similar areas so far detached from each other. On the one hand, Dung's pioneering contributions to abstract argumentation, almost thirty years ago, gave rise to a plethora of successors, including abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs). On the other hand, Boolean networks (BNs), devised as models of gene regulation, have been successful for studying the behavior of molecular processes within cells. ADFs and BNs are similar to each other: both can be viewed as functions from vectors of bits to vectors of bits. As soon as similarities emerge between these two formalisms, however, differences appear. For example, conflict-freedom is prominent in argumentation (where we are interested in a self-consistent, i.e., conflict-free, set of beliefs) but absent in BNs. By contrast, asynchrony (where only one gene is updated at a time) is conspicuous in BNs and lacking in argumentation. Finally, while a monotonicity-based notion occurs in signed reasoning of both argumentation and gene regulation, a different, derivative-based notion only appears in the BN literature. To identify common mathematical structure between both formalisms, these differences need clarification. This contribution is a partial review of both these areas, where we cover enough ground to exhibit their more evident similarities, to then reconcile some of their apparent differences. We highlight a range of avenues of research resulting from ironing out discrepancies between these two fields. Unveiling their common concerns should enable these two areas to cross-fertilize so as to transfer ideas and results between each other.
△ Less
Submitted 8 July, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
The Need for a Meta-Architecture for Robot Autonomy
Authors:
Stalin Muñoz Gutiérrez,
Gerald Steinbauer-Wagner
Abstract:
Long-term autonomy of robotic systems implicitly requires dependable platforms that are able to naturally handle hardware and software faults, problems in behaviors, or lack of knowledge. Model-based dependable platforms additionally require the application of rigorous methodologies during the system development, including the use of correct-by-construction techniques to implement robot behaviors.…
▽ More
Long-term autonomy of robotic systems implicitly requires dependable platforms that are able to naturally handle hardware and software faults, problems in behaviors, or lack of knowledge. Model-based dependable platforms additionally require the application of rigorous methodologies during the system development, including the use of correct-by-construction techniques to implement robot behaviors. As the level of autonomy in robots increases, so do the cost of offering guarantees about the dependability of the system. Certifiable dependability of autonomous robots, we argue, can benefit from formal models of the integration of several cognitive functions, knowledge processing, reasoning, and meta-reasoning. Here we put forward the case for a generative model of cognitive architectures for autonomous robotic agents that subscribes to the principles of model-based engineering and certifiable dependability, autonomic computing, and knowledge-enabled robotics.
△ Less
Submitted 20 July, 2022;
originally announced July 2022.
