Building and Commissioning of the CMS Pixel Barrel Detector

The CMS pixel barrel detector is a complex system that consists of 768 segmented silicon sensor modules. The total number of readout channels in the system is about 48 million. An overview on the module assembly and qualification procedures as well as testing results will be presented. The assembly of the detector control and readout electronics on the supply tube, the integration of the final system and the installation into CMS will be explained. The strategy and results from the early commissioning of the complete system that includes the performance of the hardware and the data acquisition and control software will be reviewed

Signature region within the 16S rDNA sequences of Aeromonas popoffii

To identify a group of eight Aeromonas strains of our collection showing ribotyping patterns similar to those described for the species Aeromonas popoffii, 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis was performed. Results were in agreement with the DNA binding values, and allowed the identification of a ‘signature region' differentiating the A. popoffii strains from all other members of the genus Aeromona

A formal account of dishonesty

International audienceThis paper provides formal accounts of dishonest attitudes of agents. We introduce a propositional multi-modal logic that can represent an agent's belief and intention as well as communication between agents. Using the language, we formulate different categories of dishonesty. We first provide two different definitions of lies and provide their logical properties. We then consider an incentive behind the act of lying and introduce lying with objectives. We subsequently define bullshit, withholding information and half-truths, and analyze their formal properties. We compare different categories of dishonesty in a systematic manner, and examine their connection to deception. We also propose maxims for dishonest communication that agents should ideally try to satisfy

Abstract Games of Argumentation Strategy and Game-Theoretical Argument Strength

We define a generic notion of abstract games of argumentation strategy for (attack-only and bipolar) argumentation frameworks, which are zero-sum games whereby two players put forward sets of arguments and get a reward for their combined choices. The value of these games, in the classical game-theoretic sense, can be used to define measures of (quantitative) game-theoretic strength of arguments, which are different depending on whether either or both players have an “agenda” (i.e. an argument they want to be accepted). We show that this general scheme captures as a special instance a previous proposal in the literature (single agenda, attack-only frameworks), and seamlessly supports the definition of a spectrum of novel measures of game-theoretic strength where both players have an agenda and/or bipolar frameworks are considered. We then discuss the applicability of these instances of game-theoretic strength in different contexts and analyse their basic properties

Wie is wie in de Faculty, jubileumuitgave ter gelegenheid van 420 jaar Rechtenfaculteit

Fiscale economie (Z) (1.3

Introducing Preference-Based Argumentation to Inconsistent Ontological Knowledge Bases

International audienceHandling inconsistency is an inherent part of decision making in traditional agri-food chains – due to the various concerns involved. In order to explain the source of inconsistency and represent the existing conflicts in the ontological knowledge base, argumentation theory can be used. However, the current state of art methodology does not allow to take into account the level of significance of the knowledge expressed by the various ontological knowledge sources. We propose to use preferences in order to model those differences between formulas and evaluate our proposal practically by implementing it within the INRA platform and showing a use case using this formalism in a bread making decision support system

Dialogue games for explaining medication choices

SMT solvers can be used efficiently to search for optimal paths across multiple graphs when optimising for certain resources. In the medical context, these graphs can represent treatment plans for chronic conditions where the optimal paths across all plans under consideration are the ones which minimize adverse drug interactions. The SMT solvers, however, work as a black-box model and there is a need to justify the optimal plans in a human-friendly way. We aim to fulfill this need by proposing explanatory dialogue protocols based on computational argumentation to increase the understanding and trust of humans interacting with the system. The protocols provide supporting reasons for nodes in a path and also allow counter reasons for the nodes not in the graph, highlighting any potential adverse interactions during the dialogue.Postprin