Measurable Cones and Stable, Measurable Functions

We define a notion of stable and measurable map between cones endowed with measurability tests and show that it forms a cpo-enriched cartesian closed category. This category gives a denotational model of an extension of PCF supporting the main primitives of probabilistic functional programming, like continuous and discrete probabilistic distributions, sampling, conditioning and full recursion. We prove the soundness and adequacy of this model with respect to a call-by-name operational semantics and give some examples of its denotations

Probabilistic Argumentation with Epistemic Extensions and Incomplete Information

Abstract argumentation offers an appealing way of representing and evaluating arguments and counterarguments. This approach can be enhanced by a probability assignment to each argument. There are various interpretations that can be ascribed to this assignment. In this paper, we regard the assignment as denoting the belief that an agent has that an argument is justifiable, i.e., that both the premises of the argument and the derivation of the claim of the argument from its premises are valid. This leads to the notion of an epistemic extension which is the subset of the arguments in the graph that are believed to some degree (which we defined as the arguments that have a probability assignment greater than 0.5). We consider various constraints on the probability assignment. Some constraints correspond to standard notions of extensions, such as grounded or stable extensions, and some constraints give us new kinds of extensions

A Labelling Framework for Probabilistic Argumentation

The combination of argumentation and probability paves the way to new accounts of qualitative and quantitative uncertainty, thereby offering new theoretical and applicative opportunities. Due to a variety of interests, probabilistic argumentation is approached in the literature with different frameworks, pertaining to structured and abstract argumentation, and with respect to diverse types of uncertainty, in particular the uncertainty on the credibility of the premises, the uncertainty about which arguments to consider, and the uncertainty on the acceptance status of arguments or statements. Towards a general framework for probabilistic argumentation, we investigate a labelling-oriented framework encompassing a basic setting for rule-based argumentation and its (semi-) abstract account, along with diverse types of uncertainty. Our framework provides a systematic treatment of various kinds of uncertainty and of their relationships and allows us to back or question assertions from the literature

Stable Model Counting and Its Application in Probabilistic Logic Programming

Model counting is the problem of computing the number of models that satisfy a given propositional theory. It has recently been applied to solving inference tasks in probabilistic logic programming, where the goal is to compute the probability of given queries being true provided a set of mutually independent random variables, a model (a logic program) and some evidence. The core of solving this inference task involves translating the logic program to a propositional theory and using a model counter. In this paper, we show that for some problems that involve inductive definitions like reachability in a graph, the translation of logic programs to SAT can be expensive for the purpose of solving inference tasks. For such problems, direct implementation of stable model semantics allows for more efficient solving. We present two implementation techniques, based on unfounded set detection, that extend a propositional model counter to a stable model counter. Our experiments show that for particular problems, our approach can outperform a state-of-the-art probabilistic logic programming solver by several orders of magnitude in terms of running time and space requirements, and can solve instances of significantly larger sizes on which the current solver runs out of time or memory.Comment: Accepted in AAAI, 201