Get PDF Slovenian lectures: Introduction into Argumentative Semantics

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Slovenian lectures: Introduction into Argumentative Semantics file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Slovenian lectures: Introduction into Argumentative Semantics book. Happy reading Slovenian lectures: Introduction into Argumentative Semantics Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Slovenian lectures: Introduction into Argumentative Semantics at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Slovenian lectures: Introduction into Argumentative Semantics Pocket Guide.
OSWALD DUCROT SLOVENIAN LECTURES Introduction into Argumentative Semantics (Edited by Igor Ž. Žagar). Book · January with
Table of contents



The focus will be on one of the main proof-theoretical problems: This problem originates from the inherent non-compactness of the so called non-restricted real-valued probabilistic logics. Dung's framework provides an abstract view of argumentation where the origin and the structure of arguments are left unspecified, and the interaction between them is simply modeled as a binary relation indicating that an argument attacks another one.

Despite this simplicity, a great number of semantics have been identified, along with several example-independent criteria for evaluating and comparing such semantics. More recently, some semantics properties -including directionality and SCC-recursiveness- have been exploited to support local and incremental computation of extensions, in order to reduce the computational effort and to manage argumentation dynamics. While different properties have been devised with different motivations, some similarities and, sometimes, subtle differences between them can be identified.

Navigation menu

The talk will review a number of semantics properties focusing on their relationships and on possible directions for future investigation. Interest in the use of numbers in argumentation in general and, in particular, in the context of the formalism of abstract argumentation frameworks is gaining momentum in last years, with a variety of proposals appearing in recent literature where numbers are used in various different ways and sometimes with very different meanings, in spite of possible formal similarities.

The lack of a reference framework, explicitly stated assumptions, and shared principles, makes difficult to assess and compare these proposals in a systematic way and also to point out some possibly overlooked potential lines of development for numerical argumentation. The talk will present an ongoing work aimed at laying out a systematic classification of the uses and meanings of numbers in abstract argumentation, with focus on placing some prominent literature proposals in the picture and on discussing directions for future investigation.

Social Computing SC requires agents to reason seamlessly both on their social relationships and on their goals, beliefs. We claim the need to explicitly represent the social state and social relationships as resources, available to agents. We built a framework, 2COMM, based on Cartago, where this vision is realized and Social Computing is implemented through social commitments and commitment protocols.

We present a novel algorithm for synthesizing strategies satisfying specifications given in a fragment of the Linear Temporal Logic with Knowledge LTLK in one-agent-against-environment systems with partial information and perfect recall. Our technique is inspired from recent work on synthesis from LTL specifications using antichain-based algorithms.

Our approach has been tested with encouraging results on some case studies, in which our implementation is able to handle tree automata with several thousand states. Ringo Baumann University of Leipzig. Notions of equivalence which guarantee intersubstitutability w. This paper is within the context of abstract argumentation and we focus on the most general form of a dynamic scenarios, so-called updates as well as certain subclasses, namely local, normal and arbitrary deletions.

We provide characterization theorems for the corresponding equivalence notions and draw the relations to the recently proposed kinds of expansion equivalence. Many of the results rely on abstract concepts like context-free kernels or semantics satisfying isolate-inclusion. Therefore, the results may apply to future semantics as well as further equivalence notions. Delegation is a commonplace feature in our society. Individuals give power of attorney to their lawyers to perform certain actions for them e.

The logic behind such a system has been studied by several communities. X counts as Y in context C. In law there are various rules for power of attorney. In computer science one talks about access control and delegation. This paper examines the approach to delegation in Talmudic Logic. The current approaches to delegation, mainly study three features 1. Dominance — if several primary sources delegate to secondary sources who carry on delegating then what is the dominance relationship among the chains of delegations 2. Revocation — if some sources revoke the delegation or some change their minds and reinstate, how does this propagate through the chains of delegations?

Resilience — if one source revokes delegation do we cancel other delegations from other sources on the grounds that we now do not trust the delegate? In the literature systems have been constructed which either model or implement a calculus of Delegation-Revocation Privilege calculus. Their purpose is to answer the question of whether the chain of delegation and revocations can allow an agent to perform an action and their models are chain update models. The Talmudic approach is slightly different not only in the details of its model but also in its point view.

The Talmud not only examines the procedure of the actual acts of delegation and revocation and its calculus but also includes the analysis of ordinary actions not just chain update actions — their elements of agency, action, deliberation and competence. These attributes have preconditions addressing not only acts but also delegation and revocation chains leading to the actions.

The Talmud also addresses cases of delegated agents unable to execute the actions for various reasons, and the possibility of agents going mad or dying during the delegation revocation process, with their repercussions. Adam Wyner University of Aberdeen. Linguists and logicians have not, generally, collaborated on research about the deontic concepts of obligations, prohibitions, and permissions.


  1. Altri titoli da considerare;
  2. Alison Wonderland.
  3. ILIAS Internal Seminars?
  4. MySQL Workbench: Data Modeling & Development (Oracle Press)!
  5. ICS - ICS Publications.
  6. The Girl From An Alternate NFAR Universe!

Each 'camp' had a distinct approach: It appeared that there were few common problems, and there was little impact of one on the other. By way of contributing to and stimulating this development, the talk touches briefly on several topics from the speaker's past research on the language and logic of deontic concepts bearing on: Clara Smith University of Bologna.

There are occasions in which an agent lengthens its own action through the implementation of a foreign activity for its own interests. We focus on the occasional relation between a principal agent and a helper agent. Historically, approaches to defeasible reasoning have been concerned mostly with one aspect of defeasibility, viz. Research on non-monotonic logics is therefore largely concerned with the defeasibility of argument forms and the associated normality or abnormality of its constituents.

In this talk we are interested in another aspect of defeasibility, namely that of defeasible modes of inference. These aim to formalize the defeasible aspects of traditional modal notions such as actions, beliefs and knowledge, to name a few. To this end we define a modal logic which provides a general framework within which notions such as normal effects, normal knowledge and many others can be formalized. We do so by enriching the standard possible worlds semantics with a preference ordering on worlds in Kripke models, which allows us to refer to the relative normality of accessible worlds.

The preference order informs the meaning of existing modal operators by considering minimality in accessible worlds, where accessibility is determined independently from the preference order. Defining preferential extensions of modal logics turns out to be particularly promising mostly because they are based on one of the most comprehensive and successful frameworks for nonmonotonic reasoning in the propositional case, namely the KLM approach.

The resulting preferential modal logics make it possible to elegantly capture, and reason with, aspects of defeasibility heretofore beyond the reach of traditional modal formalisms. We also propose a tableau calculus which is sound and complete with respect to our preferential semantics, and of which the computational complexity remains in the same class as that of the underlying classical modal logic. Patrick Allo Vrije Universiteit Brussel. The traditional idea that logic is specially relevant for reasoning stems from the fact that logic is often conceived as an absolute normative constraint on what we should and should not believe a synchronous constraint and as an infallible guide for what we should or may come to believe in view of what we already believe a diachronic constraint.

This view is threathened by the existence of rational failures of deductive cogency; belief-states that do not conform to what logic would require, but that are never- theless more rational than any revised belief-state that would be deductively cogent. The suggestion that belief-states that are not deductively cogent can still be rational depends itself on the view that logical norms like consistency or deductive closure can sometimes be overruled by extra-logical norms.

The latter clearly poses a problem for views that grant logic a special role in reasoning. The underlying idea is that the special role of logic is inconsistent with the presumed defeasible character of logical norms. In particular, I'd like to focus on strategies that a rely on the use of non-classical logics, b claim that logic can be used to formalise defeasible reasoning forms, and c propose a logical model of belief and belief-revision.

While each of these three strategies reduces the gap between logic and reasoning, and even share some of their formal resources, a unified philosophical account of such proposals is still missing. My aim in this talk is relatively modest. I only want to develop a minimal model that integrates the crucial features of sub-classical logics, with models of belief that rely on defeasible reasoning and allow for belief-revision. The upshot is to distill an account of the special role of logic in reasoning that is consistent with our best formal logical models of belief.

Argumentation meets Natural Language Processing: In this talk we will present existing approaches coupling Argumentation Theory and Natural Language Processing, and then we will present our contributions in that area, highlighting the remaining open challenges. In order to cut in on a debate on the web, the participants need first to evaluate the opinions of the other users to detect whether they are in favor or against the debated issue. Bipolar argumentation proposes algorithms and semantics to evaluate the set of accepted arguments, given the support and the attack relations among them.

Two main problems arise. Our talk addresses this open issue by proposing and evaluating the use of natural language techniques to identify the arguments and their relations. In particular, we adopt the textual entailment approach, a generic framework for applied semantics, where linguistic objects are mapped by means of semantic inferences at a textual level. Textual entailment is then coupled together with an abstract bipolar argumentation system which allows to identify the arguments that are accepted in the considered online debate.

Second, we address the problem of studying and comparing the different proposals put forward for modeling the support relation.

https://ediscoverynutsandbolts.com/wp-content/mibim-applicazione-per.php

ILIAS Internal Seminars

The emerging scenario shows that there is not a unique interpretation of the support relation. In particular, different combinations of additional attacks among the arguments involved in a support relation are proposed. We provide a natural language account of the notion of support based on online debates, by discussing and evaluating the support relation among arguments with respect to the more specific notion of textual entailment in the natural language processing field. From norms to norm-propositions: The resulting reformulation has various advantages.

Second, we demonstrate that our modal framework gives naturally rise to useful variants. Finally, the adaptive extensions allow us to manage defeasible input and constraints in various ways, within the same overall framework. Livio Robaldo University of Turin. Distributivity, Collectivity, and Cumulativity in terms of In dependence and Maximality. Among the readings available for NL sentences, those where two or more sets of entities are independent of one another - termed in the talk as Independent Set readings - are particularly challenging. In the literature, examples of those readings are known as Collective and Cumulative readings.

A new logical framework for NL quantification, based on Generalized Quantifiers, Skolem-like functional dependencies, and Maximality of the involved sets of entities is proposed. The framework seems to adequately deal with both Independent Set readings and standard linear readings in a scalable, natural, and uniform fashion.

Dynamic Epistemic Logic DEL deals with the representation and the study in a multi-agent setting of knowledge and belief change. It can express in a uniform way epistemic statements about: We axiomatize within the DEL framework what we can infer about iii given i and ii , what we can infer about ii given i and iii , and what we can infer about i given ii and iii.

These three inference problems are related to classical problems addressed under different guises in artificial intelligence and theoretical computer science, which we call respectively progression, epistemic planning and regression. Given three formulas F i , F ii and F iii describing respectively i , ii and iii , we also show how to build three formulas which capture respectively all the information which can be inferred about iii from F i and F ii , all the information which can be inferred about ii from F i and F iii , and all the information which can be inferred about i from F ii and F iii.

We show how our results extend to other modal logics than K. There is a wide spectrum of abilities and architectures available in the world of artificial agents; it is not an exaggeration to say the world of online commerce and network based governmental services would be crippled if human, corporate or governmental principals did not employ software based artificial agents to conduct business for them. As the number of interactions mediated by artificial agents increases, it will become increasingly important to carve out legal space for the artificial agent in order to do justice to its increasingly autonomous role within our networks of social, political and economic relations.

Societal norms and the legal system constrain our interactions with other human beings our fellow citizens or peoples of other nations , other legal persons corporations and public bodies or animal entities. There is, in parallel, a rich philosophical discussion of the normative aspects of these interactions in social, political and moral philosophy, and in epistemology and metaphysics. The law, taking its cues from these traditions, strives to provide structure to these interactions, and attempts to answer questions such as: What rights do our fellow citizens have?

How do we judge them liable for their actions? When do we attribute knowledge to them? How do we assess the quality of their decisions? What sorts of responsibilities can, and should be, assigned to them? White, University of Michigan Press, seeks to take forward these parallel legal and philosophical projects in answer to conundrums posed by artificial agents. In it, we seek to apply and extend existing legal and philosophical theories of personhood, knowledge attribution, agency, responsibility, and liability, to the many roles artificial agents can be expected to play and the legal challenges they will pose while so doing.

Concentrating on five interconnected areas: Drawing upon both contemporary and classical legal and philosophical analysis, we develop a prescriptive legal theory for the legal, philosophical and technical communities to guide our future interactions with artificial agents. In this talk, the first twenty-five years of this development are summarized. The topics covered include equivalent characterizations of AGM operations, extended representations of the belief states, change operators not included in the original framework, iterated change, applications of the model, its connections with other formal frameworks, and criticism of the model.

The goal of this work is to state conditions guaranteeing that a definition can be replaced by a certain axiom in the proof verifier Metamath. The main axiomatic system developed in Metamath is Set. A limitation of Metamath is that it is impossible for a user to introduce a definition D in an axiomatic system A. On the other hand, a user can extend the language of A and add a new axiom X. In parallel, a theorem generated from A and X is a theorem of A', where A' is the system obtained from A by adding X to the axioms.

The goal of this work is to state conditions ensuring that the theorems induced by A and D are exactly those generated from A and X. In this talk, I will present Dependence Logic and I will discuss a number of recent results concerning the classification of extensions and variants of this formalism. Furthermore, I will argue that this logic represents a natural cutoff point in the family of first order logics of imperfect information. In this talk we will discuss Group Decision Making GDM and some current research on applying an argumentation approach for it.

The problem of GDM involves combining the individual preferences of several agents into group preferences, such as in Social Choice Theory. Most approaches are established as a function over the set of individual preference orderings and produce another preference ordering meant to represent the opinion of the group. However these suffer from several known inconsistencies. We believe argumentation can improve GDM as agents could try to convince the others about what are the better options in their own opinion , what would lead for some bad options to be discarded and some individual preferences to be updated.

For this purpose, we will present Cooperative Dialogues as an important step towards this kind of GDM. In the talk we will therefore discuss some of the basic concepts we have already conceived, the next steps of our research, and some challenges to the current approach. I will present an extension of strategic normal form games with a phase of negotiations before the actual play of the game, where players can make binding offers for transfer of utilities to other players after the play of the game, in order to provide incentives for each other to play designated strategies.

Offers are conditional on the recipients playing the specified strategies and they effect transformations of the payoff matrix of the game by accordingly transferring payoffs between players. I will discuss solution concepts for 2-player normal form games with such preplay offers under various assumptions for the preplay negotiation phase and will mention some results for existence of efficient negotiation strategies of both players.

Time permitting, I will then discuss extensions of the framework to coalitional preplay offers in N-player games, as well as to extensive form games with inter-play offers for side payments. This talk deals with strategical issues of arguing agents in a multi-agent setting. We investigate different scenarios of such argumentation games that differ in the protocol used for argumentation, i. We give a thorough investigation and classification of these scenarios employing structured argumentation frameworks which are an extension to Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks that give a simple inner structure to arguments.

We also provide some game theoretical results that characterize a specific argumentation game as strategy-proof and develop some argumentation selection strategies that turn out to be the dominant strategies for other specific argumentation games. Giovanni Peccati University of Luxembourg Title: Motivated by some problems in cosmological data analysis, I will discuss some recent results concerning probabilistic approximations and related convergence theorems.

Connections with the notions of concentration and universality will be also discussed. Noise characterization in geodetic time series: Tanja Schiling University of Luxembourg Title: We present an introduction into Monte Carlo simulation as it is used in soft matter physics, and, in particular to predict materials properties of simple model systems such as hard colloidal particles.

As examples we will show recent results on percolation in suspensions of anisotropic particles and on the freezing transition in suspesnions of hard spheres. Genetic Search Reinforced by the Population Hierarchy: As a result of their ability to deliver high quality solutions in reasonable time, Meta-heuristics are usually employed as effective methods to solve the complex multi-objective optimization problems.

A Genetic Algorithm variant, HGS differs from other genetic methods in its capability of searching concurrently the solution space. The HGS efficiency is therefore produced by the simultaneous execution of many dependent evolutionary processes. Every single process is then interpreted as the branch in a tree structure and can be defined as a sequence of evolving populations.

The overall dependency relation among processes has a restricted number of levels. In this talk we present the theoretical and experimental evaluation of HGS in solving various complex multi-objective optimisation problems in discrete and continuous domains. In particular, the application of the strategy in scheduling the independent tasks in Computational Grids under various criteria like the time and budget constraints, energy consumption, security scheduling, is highlighted.

She is an associate professor at the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science of the University of Bielsko-Biala Poland , which she joined in Evolutionary computation, modelling of stochastic processes, Grid computing and global optimization meta-heuristics are the main topics of her research. She has published in international journals, books and conference proceedings of the research area. First we prove that the satisability problem of a formula of the fragment made up of individual coalitions plus the grand coalition is also NEXPTIME-complete.

We then generalize this result to a fragment where coalitions are in a given lattice. We also prove that if we restrict the language to nested coalitions the satisability problem is NP-complete if the number of agents is fixed and PSPACE-complete if the number of agents is variable. I will introduce and discuss the main concepts of the rule-based agent programming language GOAL beliefs, goals, rules, and modules , discuss how these agents interact with environments action and percepts , and communication in a multi-agent system.

I'll also present various examples of environments, including classic AI toy problems such as the Blocks and Wumpus World, games such as UT, and robots. The purpose of the talk is to present some results and directions of research in the area of mobility.

In particular we present the idea of hypernets in which agents supervise the activities of other agents in hierarchical manner. The model is based in Petri nets, i. Thus, the formalism falls within the ,,nets-within-nets'' group of frameworks. This has distinctive advantages: Thus, certain important properties, like reachability of a state from a given one, are decidable, although at very high cost. Since non-trivial fragments of temporal logics tend to have undecidable model-checking problem one is also tempted to turn to Petri nets which support invariant analysis as a method to verify interesting properties of systems with possibly infinite state spaces.

Computers consist mainly on two kinds of processors: CPUs are used in personal computers as the main processing unit. GPUs were introduced in the late s to assist central processors in display operations. Moreover, they can be used for accelerating different applications by applying parallel treatments on massive amount of data. More particularly, image and video processing algorithms can benefit from these platforms by exploiting effectively their computing units in parallel.

We propose a general framework for multimedia processing on parallel GPU and heterogeneous architectures. Indeed, we employ an efficient scheduling strategy based on the history of the computing times of precedent tasks. Experimentations have been conducted using different types of media HD images, databases of medical images, HD videos within different applications.

These results showed a global speedup ranging from 10 to 50, by comparison with sequential CPU implementations. The verification and modeling of multi-agent systems is an important topic that has attracted much attention in recent years. Resources, however, have only recently been studied as simple extensions of well-known logics. In this talk I explore the question: Where are the limits of what can be verified about resource-bounded agents? I try to answer this question by considering several natural logic-based settings that may arise and prove that verification is usually undecidable apart from bounded or otherwise restricted settings.

In the second part of my talk, I turn to the question of how agents can be incentivised to comply with the norms of a MAS. I show how concepts from mechanism design can be used to formally analyze and verify whether specific normative behaviors can be enforced or implemented if agents follow their subjective preferences. The behavior of agents strongly depends on available resources incentives themselves can be seen as resources. Hence, a natural question arises: How to achieve and how to verify norm compliance of resource-bounded agents? I would like to address this question in my future research.

In our talk we are going to present a novel approach to verification of multi-agent systems by bounded model checking for Linear Time Temporal Logic extended with the epistemic component LTLK , which is interpreted over interleaved interpreted systems. Our method is based on binary decision diagrams that are used for representing the verified system. We describe the algorithm and provide its experimental evaluation together with the comparison with another tool. We also provide an overview of other verification tools for multi-agent systems.

Dynamic Epistemic Logic DEL deals with the representation of situations in a multi-agent and dynamic setting. It can express in a uniform way statements about: After proving that what we can infer about ii given i and iii and what we can infer about i given ii and iii are both reducible to what we can infer about iii given i and ii , we provide a tableau method deciding whether such an inference is valid.

This contributes to the proof theory and the study of the computational complexity of DEL which have rather been neglected so far. We study a general aggregation problem in which a society has to determine its position on each of several issues, based on the positions of the members of the society on those issues. There is a prescribed set of feasible evaluations, i. Among other things, this framework admits the modeling of preference aggregation, judgment aggregation, classification, clustering and facility location.

An important notion in aggregation of evaluations is strategy-proofness. In the general framework we discuss here, several definitions of strategy-proofness may be considered. We present here 3 natural general definitions of strategy-proofness and analyze the possibility of designing an annonymous, strategy-proof aggregation rule under these definitions.

Joint work with Dvir Falik. We present scheduling problems with the late work criteria - non classical performance measures. Late work objective functions estimate the quality of a schedule based on durations of late parts of jobs, not taking into account the amount of delay for fully late jobs. We provide a formal definition of the late work parameter and compare the criteria based on it with other classical performance measures.

Moreover, a few real world applications of the late work objective function are given. Then we present selected results obtained for late work scheduling problems with a single machine, parallel and dedicated machines. At the same University, she got Ph. Her fields of interest include scheduling theory, complexity theory, algorithms design, selected aspects of graph theory, combinatorial optimization and bioinformatics. She is a member of Polish Accreditation Committee. In this lecture I will present and discuss the hexagon of opposition, an improvement of the square of opposition due to Robert Blanche.

This hexagon includes the traditional square and can be extended to three dimensional objects giving a better understanding of modalities and negations. I will also show how this simple logical structure based on three oppositions can be applied to many different concepts ranging from logic to music, through metalogic, economy and semiotics. We consider two-player stochastic games played on finite graphs with reachability and Buechi objectives where the first player tries to ensure a target state to be visited or visited infinitely often almost-surely, i.

We classify such games according to the information and to the power of randomization available to the players. On the basis of information, the game can be one-sided with either a player 1, or b player 2 having partial observation, or two-sided with c both players having partial observation. On the basis of randomization, a the players may not be allowed to use randomization pure strategies , or b they may choose a probability distribution over actions but the actual random choice is external and not visible to the player actions invisible , or c they may use full randomization.

Our main results for pure strategies are as follows: We establish the equivalence of the almost-sure winning problems for pure strategies and for randomized strategies with actions invisible. Our equivalence result exhibits serious flaws in previous results in the literature: The current work aims at providing a formal account of lying - a dishonest attitude of human beings. We first formulate lying under propositional modal logic and present basic properties for it. We then investigate why one engages in lying and how one reasons about lying.

We distinguish between offensive and defensive lies, or deductive and abductive lies, based on intention behind the act. We also study two weak forms of dishonesty, bullshit and deception, and provide their logical features in contrast to lying. We finally argue dishonesty postulates that agents should try to satisfy for both moral and self-interested reasons.

Joint work with Martin Caminada and Andreas Herzig. Chiaki Sakama graduated from Kyoto University in and received a Dr. He has been engaged in research on logic programming, nonmonotonic reasoning, and machine learning. His recent research interests involve in theoretical foundations of multiagent systems and social intelligence. Eunomos, a legal document management system based on legislative XML and ontologies.

How to Write an Argumentative Essay - Planning

This talk will discuss the ongoing work and future developments on the Eunomos software, an advanced legal document management system that enables users to research laws and legal concepts, and make sure they comply with their legal obligations. Eunomos is based on legislative XML representation of laws which are retrieved automatically from institutional legislative portals, and is complemented by a tool for building legal ontologies called Legal Taxonomy Syllabus. The software can help law firms, in-house legal offices and law scholars by offering them an environment which makes laws easier to navigate, annotate and understand, using automatically generated hyperlinks to referenced legislation, an extensible and updatable ontology which provides current and previous definitions for norms and concepts within any specific context, and an alert system that specifies existing legislation affected by new legislation.

It is intended that the system will be used in the first instance by banks and insurance companies to help them comply with strict regulatory duties in a highly complex and constantly evolving area of law. Dung's argumentation framework consists of a set of arguments and an attack relation among them. Arguments are evaluated and acceptable sets of them, called extensions, are computed using a given semantics.

In the literature, several proposals have extended this framework in a way to take into account the strength of arguments. The basic idea is to ignore an attack if the attacked argument is stronger than or preferred to its attacker.

Account Options

Semantics are then applied using only the remaining attacks. In this talk, we show that those proposals behave correctly when the attack relation is symmetric. However, when it is asymmetric, conflicting extensions may be returned leading to unintended conclusions. We propose an approach that guarantees conflict-free extensions. This approach presents two novelties: The idea is to extend existing semantics with preferences. In case preferences are not available or do not conflict with the attacks, the extensions of the new semantics coincide with those of the basic ones.

The second novelty of our approach is that a semantics is defined as a dominance relation on the power set of the set of arguments. The extensions under a semantics are the maximal elements of a dominance relation. Such an approach allows not only to compute the extensions of a framework but also to compare its non-extensions. We start by proposing three dominance relations that generalize respectively stable, preferred and grounded semantics with preferences.

Then, we focus on stable semantics and provide a full characterization of its dominance relations and that of its generalized versions. Complexity results are also provided. Finally, we show that an instance of the proposed framework retrieves the preferred sub-theories which were proposed in the context of handling inconsistency in weighted knowledge bases.

In abstract argumentation, where arguments are viewed as abstract entities with a binary defeat relation among them, a set of agents may assign individual members the right to determine the collective defeat relation on some pairs of arguments. I prove that even under a minimal condition of rationality, the assignment of rights to two or more agents is inconsistent with the unanimity principle, whereby unanimously accepted defeat or defend relation among arguments are collectively accepted. This result expands the domain of liberal impossibility beyond preference aggregation and judgment aggregation, and highlights this impossibility as an inherent tension between individual rights and collective consensus.

Recently, epistemic variations of ATL have been introduced that take into account that players in games often only have partial information on which they can base their decisions, and in addition allow to explicitly express knowledge-based properties of games. Additionally, extensions of ATL to probabilistic contexts have been investigated. We present QAPI, a new variant of ATL which incorporates the above features, and allows explicit reasoning about strategies in the object language. This leads to a very expressive logic that can express complex strategic properties as equilibria.

We obtain bisimulation relations and model checking complexity results. As application, we show how to use QAPI to express security properties of state-observed systems as well as cryptographic protocols.

Unisciti a Kobo e inizia a leggere oggi stesso

This implies new decidability results in cryptographic protocol verification. The present talk discusses the classical problem of transforming a strategic game into a cooperative one and answers two questions:. The first part of the talk, result of joint work with Wojtek Jamroga and Valentin Goranko, revisits the issue of correspondence between strategic games, objects of study of noncooperative game-theory, and effectivity functions, object of study of cooperative game theory.

The second one, result of joint work with Davide Grossi, proposes a new approach to cooperative interaction, where players cooperate only in presence of an appropriate interdependence. The resulting structures can be nicely analyzed with classical tools.

There is a great deal of existing work on changes in belief states when a public announcement is made.


  • ICS Publications - ISL.
  • Oswald Ducrot - Monoskop.
  • Theme From Beauty And The Beast.
  • Conversations with Nora: A Familys Journey with Alzheimers.
  • Babys First Book - Parts of the Face (ADVANCED WITH ACTIVITIES).
  • Year Of The Rat: A Tale Of Financial Terrorism (David Anderson Action series second book Book 1).
  • How is this work relevant to campaigning? In the US, while a presidential election typically takes a single day, the processs of campaigning starts more than a year in advance, with various candidates trying to influence public opinion. We offer a simple propositional logic based model for this process. We assume that the various issues are represented by certain propositions which may become true or false as the result of a particular candidate becoming elected.

    We also assume that various groups of voters of different sizes have wishes as to whether they want a particular proposition to be true or false and who also have a degree of passion for each such proposition representing how much they care. The candidate has already made some statements indicating how she will act if elected but her positions on some issues may be unclear. How should she speak now in order to increase her chances of being elected? Possible worlds and relational semantics are commonly used to model multi-agent systems.

    However, describing a complex system in terms of possible worlds is often unpractical. In this talk, I will provide evidences that interesting logics with small models are attainable for a variety of notions: Axiomatisations, and complexities of model checking and satisfiability checking will be discussed.

    Aggregating the judgments of a group of agents regarding a set of interdependent propositions, expressed in propositional logic, can lead to inconsistent outcomes. This paradox of judgment aggregation has recently sparked a good deal of interest in Legal Theory, Philosophy, Economics, Logic, and Computer Science.

    In this talk, I will first give a short introduction to judgment aggregation and then report on our ongoing work aimed at better understanding this problem domain from a computational point of view. Specifically, we have analysed the computational complexity of several problems that naturally arise in the context of judgment aggregation: This is joint work with Umberto Grandi and Daniele Porello.

    Concentration inequalities for mean field particle models joint work with Emmanuel Rio. This lecture is concerned with the fluctuations and the concentration properties of a general class of discrete generation and mean field particle interpretations of non linear measure valued processes. We combine an original stochastic perturbation analysis with a concentration analysis for triangular arrays of conditionally independent random sequences, which may be of independent interest. Under some additional stability properties of the limiting measure valued processes, uniform concentration properties with respect to the time parameter are also derived.

    The concentration inequal ities presented here generalize the classical Hoeffding, Bernstein and Bennett inequalities for independent random sequences to interacting particle systems, yielding very new results for this class of models. We illustrate these results in the context of McKean Vlasov type diffusion models, McKean collision type models of gases, and of a class of Feynman-Kac distribution fl ows arising in stochastic engineering sciences and in molecular chemistry.

    Carneades is an argument mapping and analysis application, with a graphical user interface, and a software library for building applications supporting various argumentation tasks. Carneades provides tools supporting a variety of argumentation tasks, including:. Carneades will be demonstrated using a prototype application for helping software developers to analyse Open Source licensing issues, which was developed in the European Qualipso project. The presentation will focus on the underlying computational model of argument.

    Let's define an evolutionary process as varying and assessing options on the face of challenges, selecting and expressing the choice, repeating this until a solution construct emerges. It readily follows that a good many collective and cognitive processes fits to this description.

    However random the choice outcomes may be, only in retrospect their totality is recalled as one meaningful narrative: Could it be possible to improve such processes while experiencing them? How can evolution be improved at all while control points are spread wide, internally and externally?

    Autonomous learning is one such evolutionary cognitive process, where the variety of options increased dramatically thanks to the Web and ICT support. In this seminar, we will dicuss how can the evolutionary flow of the study experience be objectifed using phenomenological principles. A spatio-temporal computer visualisation will be proposed to mediate the flow on-the-fly. The learner can mindfully appraise the construct towards which the flow is currently oriented; guide and redirect.

    Cognitive Dimensions of Notations framework is used to evaluate the resulting increase in affordance. Many description logics have the tree model property, i. In this talk I will first show how to draw trees using small but meaningful pieces called mosaics. Then I will use the mosaic and axiom instantiation techniques to prove polynomial reductions from more expressive description logics to less expressive ones.

    Finally I will discuss how these reductions can be used to prove interpolation theorems. Interpolation itself has applications in query rewriting over databases using ontologies, obtaining acyclic TBoxes from general ones, and signature decompositions. The interplay of introduction and elimination rules for the propositional connectives is often seen as suggesting a distinguished role for intuitionistic logic in preference to classical.

    We prove a formal result that helps clarify this perspective: In recent years, the study of qualitative uncertain inference has given rise to the notion of probabilistically sound consequence relations. They are rather like preferential consequence relations in that they may fail monotony, but satisfy only conditions that are, in a natural sense, probabilistically sound. A syntactic account was given by Hawthorne, although the question of its completeness remains open. The idea is to articulate a weakest notion of conditional probability that suffices to validate the postulates of Hawthorne's system for probabilistic consequence.

    We do this in purely-order theoretic terms, calling it proto-probability, and begin a study of its behaviour. Optimal coalition structure has gained much attention in multi-agent systems research recently. The problem itself is more of an optimization problem but is also an important ingredient in solving multiple research problems in multi-agent systems. The problem is known an NP-hard problem. The research on the problem so far has focuses on the theoretical part and assumes some certain computational power.

    It is a challenge to solve this problem in bounded-rational agents, as in humanoid robots. This talk will present an attempt to bridge the theory background of the problem, which is mainly what I have done in my thesis, and the practical world as in "Nao" humanoid robots.

    The first part will be how can we solve the problem in characteristic function game. The second part is solving the problem in more practical domains, including linear, non-linear and supply chains. The last part will be the on-going work here in Luxembourg: In this talk I give an overview of the model checking problems for various strategic logics.

    Three notable hallmarks of intelligent cognition are the ability to draw rational conclusions, the ability to make plausible assumptions, and the ability to generalise from experience. Although human cognition often involves the interaction of these three abilities, in artificial intelligence they are typically studied in isolation. In our research programme, we seek to integrate the three abilities within neural computation, offering a unified framework for learning and reasoning that exploits the parallelism and robustness of connectionism.

    A neural network can be the machine for computation, inductive learning and effective reasoning, while logic provides rigour, modularity and explanation capability to the network. We call such systems, combining a connectionist learning component with a logical reasoning component, "neural-symbolic learning systems".

    In this talk, I review the work on neural-symbolic learning systems, starting with logic programming, which has already provided contributions to problems in bioinformatics and engineering. I then look at how to represent modal logic and other forms of non-classical reasoning in neural networks. The model consists of a network ensemble, each network representing the knowledge of an agent at a time-point. Networks can be combined to represent and learn relations between objects, with interesting potential applications in graph mining and link analysis in biology and social networks.

    We claim that this powerful yet simple structure offers a basis for an expressive and computationally tractable cognitive model. This talk presents a combined mechanism for coordinating agents in timed normative multi-agent systems. Timing constraints in a multi-agent system make it possible to force action execution to happen before certain time invariants are violated.

    In such multiagent systems we achieve coordination at two orthogonal levels with respect to states and actions. On the one hand, the behaviour of individual agents is regulated by means of social and organisational inspired concepts like norms and sanctions. On the other hand, the behaviour of sets of agents is restricted according to action-based coordination mechanisms called choreographies.

    In both cases, the resulting behaviour is constrained by time. We are interested in qualitative models of preferences in the context of negotiation. We are after a preference framework that supports reasoning with multiple issues and that is able to handle incomplete information. In this talk I present an argumentation-based framework for the modeling of and automated reasoning about multi-issue preferences of a qualitative nature.

    The framework presents preferences according to the lexicographic ordering that is both intuitive and well-understood by humans. We discuss some of the issues involved when only incomplete information about preferences is available. We then proceed and discuss a second issue related to incomplete information, namely the absence of objective knowledge from which preferences are derived.

    In this talk will be presented the research activities of the Supelec's IMS group. IMS focuses its research on a situated approach to information processing.

    ILIAS Seminars

    This approach mixes signal processing, machine learning and distributed computing and aims at building autonomous machines. IMS applies its research to robotics, man-machine interfaces and intelligent environments. After a general presentation of the group's research activities, the talk will focus on typical applications and projects in which IMS is currently involved. We expect this talk to be an opportunity for fruitful discussions.

    His research interests include spoken dialog systems evaluation, simulation and automatic optimisation, machine learning as well as image, multimedia and biomedical signal processing. I will discuss first steps towards a more realistic treatment and logical formalization of the abilities of players to achieve objectives in multi-player games under incomplete, imperfect, or simply wrong information that they may have about the game and about the course of the play. In this talk, after some motivating examples I will introduce a variation of the multi-agent logic ATL as a logical framework for capturing the interplay between the dynamics of information and the dynamics of abilities of players.

    This framework takes into account both the a priori information of players with respect to the game structure and the empirical information that players develop over the course of an actual play. I will discuss the problem of model checking of statements formalized in the new logic under different assumptions about the abilities of the players to observe, remember, and reason.

    In this talk I will present an integrated theoretical framework, grounded in possibility theory, to account for all the aspects involved in representing and changing beliefs, representing and generating justified desires, and selecting goals based on current and uncertain beliefs about the world, and the preferences of the agent. Beliefs and desires of a cognitive agent are represented as two distinct possibility distributions.

    In such a framework: We argue that it is useful to reason not only about the existence of strategies for players in reasoning about games , but also about what these strategies are, and how players select and construct them. We study extensive form games and suggest that this can be carried out in two ways: In each case, we study a propostional modal logic in which such reasoning is carried out, and present complete axiomatizations of valid formulas.

    The talk will discuss the relation between two independent research threads in the study of social interaction within multiagent systems: Game Theory and Dependence Theory. While the former lies on solid mathematical foundations, for the latter several informal accounts exist, but no unified formal theory. It will be maintained that the fundamental relation of Dependence Theory, "agent i depends on agent j for the realization of goal p", can be given a natural gametheoretical semantics. Most importantly, it will be observed how cycles arising from dependence relations and equilibrium outcomes in games can be related.

    This allows for the study of 'agreements', structural transformations of the strategic interaction, that 'solve' dependence relations, giving rise to a new class of coalitional games. The unification presented provides Dependence Theory with the sort of mathematical foundations which still lacks, and shows how Game Theory can incorporate dependence-theoretic considerations in a fully formal manner. Spatial or temporal reasoning is an important task for many applications in Artificial Intelligence, such as space scheduling, navigation of robots, geographic information systems, computer vision, planification.

    Several qualitative approaches have been proposed to represent spatial and temporal entities and their relations. These approaches consider the qualitative aspects of the relations only, disregarding any quantitative measurement. In some applications, e. In this talk I will highlight the problem of merging spatial or temporal qualitative constraint networks QCNs. I will present a rational merging procedure which, starting from a set of possibly conflicting QCNs, returns a non-empty set of spatial or temporal information representing the result of the merging.

    It is based on translations of QCNs into propositional formulas and takes advantage of propositional merging operators. In multimodal biometrics, data of several biometric sensors classifiers must be aggregated to decide on the authenticity of an individual. Such data are usually high-level since most commercial biometric classifiers only provide information at score, ranking, or decision levels.

    I suggest to fuse these high-level data by applying a theory that deals with contradictory information: Such a theory can also be applied to problems from voting theory. Encompassing attacks to attacks is a significant conceptual extension of Dung's abstract argumentation framework motivated by modelling needs in various contexts including reasoning about preferences, coalition formation, meta-argumentation.

    Several alternative approaches to encompassing attacks to attacks in abstract argumentation have been recently proposed in the literature. The lectures were translated by dr. The Slovenian lectures have been conceived as an introduction to the theory of argumentation in the language-system, and in Prof. Let me therefore just point out that in the last ten years prof. Ducrot, in collaboration with Marion Carel, has been developing a new version of the theory of argumentation in the language-systeme, a theory of semantic blocks.

    A lot of people collaborated at this publication; my special thanks, as the editor of the volume, go to dr. The Prince Who Became Buddha. Course in General Linguistics. Introduction to the Reading of Lacan. The Provocation of Levinas. Four Lessons of Psychoanalysis. Ricoeur and the Post-Structuralists. The Invention of the Text. Derrida, Kristeva, and the Dividing Line. Lacan and the Concept of the 'Real'.

    Dialectic of Desire and Structure of the sensorial Perception. Cut of the Real. Jacques Lacan and the Freudian Practice of Psychoanalysis. Abjection, Melancholia and Love. Psychoanalysis and the Human Sciences. Expression and Interpretation in Language. The Cambridge Companion to Sartre. The Work of Psychic Figurability. Julia Kristeva and Literary Theory. Returns of the French Freud. The Misuse of Mind. The Difficulty of Difference. On Voice in Poetry. The Death of Philosophy. Discourse Readjustment s in Contemporary English.

    The Institutions of Meaning. Hermeneutics and Phenomenology in Paul Ricoeur. The Concept of World from Kant to Derrida. Kant, Foucault, and Forms of Experience. A Companion to Ricoeur's Freedom and Nature.