Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
side, it is important to determine an appropriate ordering in the partition-based method,
while the number of messages sent between agents tends to become larger in the coop-
erative approach.
We could consider a third approach by inheriting the merits of both approaches,
such that each agent is autonomous and cooperates each other like the cooperative ap-
proach, yet each consequence finder incorporates production fields and communication
languages between agents to enhance efficiency. Consideration of such a new approach
is left as an important future work. Another future task includes more experiments with
large distributed knowledge bases by refining details of two algorithms and by changing
topological properties of agent links.
Acknowledgements.
This research is supported in part by the 2008-2011 JSPS Grant-
in-Aid for Scientific Research (A) No. 20240016.
References
1. Adjiman, P., Chatalic, P., Goasdoue, F., Rousset, M.-C., Simon, L.: Scalability study of peer-
to-peer consequence finding. In: Proc. IJCAI 2005, pp. 351-356 (2005)
2. Adjiman, P., Chatalic, P., Goasdoue, F., Rousset, M.-C., Simon, L.: Distributed reasoning
in a peer-to-peer setting: Application to the semantic web. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 25, 269-314
(2006)
3. Amir, A., McIlraith, S.: Partition-based logical reasoning for first-order and propositional
theories. Artif. Intell. 162, 49-88 (2005)
4. Bourgne, G., Maudet, N., Inoue, K.: Abduction of distributed theories through local interac-
tions. In: Proc. ECAI 2010 (2010)
5. Ciampolini, A., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Toni, F., Torroni, P.: Cooperation and competition in
ALIAS: A logic framework for agents that negotiate. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 37(1-2), 65-91
(2003)
6. Craig, W.: Linear reasoning: A new form of the Herbrand-Gentzen theorem. J. Symbolic
Logic 22, 250-268 (1957)
7. Dechter, R., Pearl, J.: Tree clustering for constraint networks. Artif. Intell. 38, 353-366
(1989)
8. del Val, A.: A new method for consequence finding and compilation in restricted languages.
In: Proc. AAAI 1999, pp. 259-264 (1999)
9. Fisher, M.: Characterizing simple negotiation as distributed agent-based theorem-proving—a
preliminary report. In: Proc. 4th Int'l Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 127-134 (2000)
10. Greco, G.: Solving abduction by computing joint explanations. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 50(1-
2), 143-194 (2007)
11. Hirayama, K., Yokoo, M.: The distributed breakout algorithms. Artif. Intell. 161, 89-115
(2005)
12. Inoue, K.: Linear resolution for consequence finding. Artif. Intell. 56, 301-353 (1992)
13. Inoue, K.: Induction as consequence finding. Machine Learning 55, 109-135 (2004)
14. Inoue, K., Iwanuma, K.: Speculative computation through consequence-finding in multi-
agent environments. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 42(1-3), 255-291 (2004)
15. Inoue, K., Iwanuma, K., Nabeshima, H.: Consequence finding and computing answers with
defaults. J. Intell. Inform. Systems 26, 41-58 (2006)
16. Inoue, K., Sato, T., Ishihata, M., Kameya, Y., Nabeshima, H.: Evaluating abductive hypothe-
ses using an EM algorithm on BDDs. In: Proc. IJCAI 2009, pp. 810-815 (2009)
