15,259 research outputs found
Strategic Argumentation is NP-Complete
In this paper we study the complexity of strategic argumentation for dialogue
games. A dialogue game is a 2-player game where the parties play arguments. We
show how to model dialogue games in a skeptical, non-monotonic formalism, and
we show that the problem of deciding what move (set of rules) to play at each
turn is an NP-complete problem
The Arity Hierarchy in the Polyadic -Calculus
The polyadic mu-calculus is a modal fixpoint logic whose formulas define
relations of nodes rather than just sets in labelled transition systems. It can
express exactly the polynomial-time computable and bisimulation-invariant
queries on finite graphs. In this paper we show a hierarchy result with respect
to expressive power inside the polyadic mu-calculus: for every level of
fixpoint alternation, greater arity of relations gives rise to higher
expressive power. The proof uses a diagonalisation argument.Comment: In Proceedings FICS 2015, arXiv:1509.0282
Argument-based Belief in Topological Structures
This paper combines two studies: a topological semantics for epistemic
notions and abstract argumentation theory. In our combined setting, we use a
topological semantics to represent the structure of an agent's collection of
evidence, and we use argumentation theory to single out the relevant sets of
evidence through which a notion of beliefs grounded on arguments is defined. We
discuss the formal properties of this newly defined notion, providing also a
formal language with a matching modality together with a sound and complete
axiom system for it. Despite the fact that our agent can combine her evidence
in a 'rational' way (captured via the topological structure), argument-based
beliefs are not closed under conjunction. This illustrates the difference
between an agent's reasoning abilities (i.e. the way she is able to combine her
available evidence) and the closure properties of her beliefs. We use this
point to argue for why the failure of closure under conjunction of belief
should not bear the burden of the failure of rationality.Comment: In Proceedings TARK 2017, arXiv:1707.0825
A New Game Equivalence and its Modal Logic
We revisit the crucial issue of natural game equivalences, and semantics of
game logics based on these. We present reasons for investigating finer concepts
of game equivalence than equality of standard powers, though staying short of
modal bisimulation. Concretely, we propose a more finegrained notion of
equality of "basic powers" which record what players can force plus what they
leave to others to do, a crucial feature of interaction. This notion is closer
to game-theoretic strategic form, as we explain in detail, while remaining
amenable to logical analysis. We determine the properties of basic powers via a
new representation theorem, find a matching "instantial neighborhood game
logic", and show how our analysis can be extended to a new game algebra and
dynamic game logic.Comment: In Proceedings TARK 2017, arXiv:1707.0825
Now there will be trouble
The paper considers sentences in which “now” occurs in initial position and shows that the meaning they convey differs from the meaning of sentences that are otherwise identical except for “now” occurring in final position. We argue that the occurrence of “now” in initial position triggers a particular kind of modal reading for the sentence to which the adverb is prefixed. A general notion of modal forcing is proposed to provide a uniform account of this kind of reading. Armed with this account, we offer a solution to two tense-modal puzzles, which have to do with fatalism and the possibility of a changing past
- …