10,162 research outputs found
Epistemic attack semantics
We present a probabilistic interpretation of the plausibility of attacks in abstract argumentation frameworks by extending the epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation with probabilities on attacks. By doing so we also generalise the previously proposed attack semantics by Villata et al. to the probabilistic setting and provide a fine-grained assessment of the plausibility of attacks. We also consider the setting where partial probabilistic information on arguments and/or attacks is given and missing probabilities have to be derived
Epistemic attack semantics
We present a probabilistic interpretation of the plausibility of attacks in abstract argumentation frameworks by extending the epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation with probabilities on attacks. By doing so we also generalise the previously proposed attack semantics by Villata et al. to the probabilistic setting and provide a fine-grained assessment of the plausibility of attacks. We also consider the setting where partial probabilistic information on arguments and/or attacks is given and missing probabilities have to be derived
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
Empirical Evaluation of Abstract Argumentation: Supporting the Need for Bipolar and Probabilistic Approaches
In dialogical argumentation it is often assumed that the involved parties
always correctly identify the intended statements posited by each other,
realize all of the associated relations, conform to the three acceptability
states (accepted, rejected, undecided), adjust their views when new and correct
information comes in, and that a framework handling only attack relations is
sufficient to represent their opinions. Although it is natural to make these
assumptions as a starting point for further research, removing them or even
acknowledging that such removal should happen is more challenging for some of
these concepts than for others. Probabilistic argumentation is one of the
approaches that can be harnessed for more accurate user modelling. The
epistemic approach allows us to represent how much a given argument is believed
by a given person, offering us the possibility to express more than just three
agreement states. It is equipped with a wide range of postulates, including
those that do not make any restrictions concerning how initial arguments should
be viewed, thus potentially being more adequate for handling beliefs of the
people that have not fully disclosed their opinions in comparison to Dung's
semantics. The constellation approach can be used to represent the views of
different people concerning the structure of the framework we are dealing with,
including cases in which not all relations are acknowledged or when they are
seen differently than intended. Finally, bipolar argumentation frameworks can
be used to express both positive and negative relations between arguments. In
this paper we describe the results of an experiment in which participants
judged dialogues in terms of agreement and structure. We compare our findings
with the aforementioned assumptions as well as with the constellation and
epistemic approaches to probabilistic argumentation and bipolar argumentation
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
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
The Logic of Joint Ability in Two-Player Tacit Games
Logics of joint strategic ability have recently received attention, with arguably the most influential being those in a family that includes Coalition Logic (CL) and Alternating-time Temporal Logic (ATL). Notably, both CL and ATL bypass the epistemic issues that underpin Schelling-type coordination problems, by apparently relying on the meta-level assumption of (perfectly reliable) communication between cooperating rational agents. Yet such epistemic issues arise naturally in settings relevant to ATL and CL: these logics are standardly interpreted on structures where agents move simultaneously, opening the possibility that an agent cannot foresee the concurrent choices of other agents. In this paper we introduce a variant of CL we call Two-Player Strategic Coordination Logic (SCL2). The key novelty of this framework is an operator for capturing coalitional ability when the cooperating agents cannot share strategic information. We identify significant differences in the expressive power and validities of SCL2 and CL2, and present a sound and complete axiomatization for SCL2. We briefly address conceptual challenges when shifting attention to games with more than two players and stronger notions of rationality
Classical Knowledge for Quantum Security
We propose a decision procedure for analysing security of quantum
cryptographic protocols, combining a classical algebraic rewrite system for
knowledge with an operational semantics for quantum distributed computing. As a
test case, we use our procedure to reason about security properties of a
recently developed quantum secret sharing protocol that uses graph states. We
analyze three different scenarios based on the safety assumptions of the
classical and quantum channels and discover the path of an attack in the
presence of an adversary. The epistemic analysis that leads to this and similar
types of attacks is purely based on our classical notion of knowledge.Comment: extended abstract, 13 page
Explicit Evidence Systems with Common Knowledge
Justification logics are epistemic logics that explicitly include
justifications for the agents' knowledge. We develop a multi-agent
justification logic with evidence terms for individual agents as well as for
common knowledge. We define a Kripke-style semantics that is similar to
Fitting's semantics for the Logic of Proofs LP. We show the soundness,
completeness, and finite model property of our multi-agent justification logic
with respect to this Kripke-style semantics. We demonstrate that our logic is a
conservative extension of Yavorskaya's minimal bimodal explicit evidence logic,
which is a two-agent version of LP. We discuss the relationship of our logic to
the multi-agent modal logic S4 with common knowledge. Finally, we give a brief
analysis of the coordinated attack problem in the newly developed language of
our logic
- …