643 research outputs found
Preservation of Semantic Properties during the Aggregation of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
An abstract argumentation framework can be used to model the argumentative
stance of an agent at a high level of abstraction, by indicating for every pair
of arguments that is being considered in a debate whether the first attacks the
second. When modelling a group of agents engaged in a debate, we may wish to
aggregate their individual argumentation frameworks to obtain a single such
framework that reflects the consensus of the group. Even when agents disagree
on many details, there may well be high-level agreement on important semantic
properties, such as the acceptability of a given argument. Using techniques
from social choice theory, we analyse under what circumstances such semantic
properties agreed upon by the individual agents can be preserved under
aggregation.Comment: In Proceedings TARK 2017, arXiv:1707.0825
Modelling Multilateral Negotiation in Linear Logic
We show how to embed a framework for multilateral negotiation,
in which a group of agents implement a sequence of deals
concerning the exchange of a number of resources, into linear logic.
In this model, multisets of goods, allocations of resources, preferences
of agents, and deals are all modelled as formulas of linear logic.
Whether or not a proposed deal is rational, given the preferences of
the agents concerned, reduces to a question of provability, as does
the question of whether there exists a sequence of deals leading to an
allocation with certain desirable properties, such as maximising social
welfare. Thus, linear logic provides a formal basis for modelling
convergence properties in distributed resource allocation
Quantificational variability effects with plural definites : quantification over individuals or situations?
In this paper we compare the behaviour of adverbs of frequency (de Swart 1993) like usually with the behaviour of adverbs of quantity like for the most part in sentences that contain plural definites. We show that sentences containing the former type of Q-adverb evidence that Quantificational Variability Effects (Berman 1991) come about as an indirect effect of quantification over situations: in order for quantificational variability readings to arise, these sentences have to obey two newly observed constraints that clearly set them apart from sentences containing corresponding quantificational DPs, and that can plausibly be explained under the assumption that quantification over (the atomic parts of) complex situations is involved. Concerning sentences with the latter type of Q-adverb, on the other hand, such evidence is lacking: with respect to the constraints just mentioned, they behave like sentences that contain corresponding quantificational DPs. We take this as evidence that Q-adverbs like for the most part do not quantify over the atomic parts of sum eventualities in the cases under discussion (as claimed by Nakanishi and Romero (2004)), but rather over the atomic parts of the respective sum individuals
Ontology Merging as Social Choice
The problem of merging several ontologies has important applications in the Semantic Web, medical ontology engineering
and other domains where information from several distinct sources needs to be integrated in a coherent manner.We propose
to view ontology merging as a problem of social choice, i.e. as a problem of aggregating the input of a set of individuals
into an adequate collective decision. That is, we propose to view ontology merging as ontology aggregation. As a first step in
this direction, we formulate several desirable properties for ontology aggregators, we identify the incompatibility of some of
these properties, and we define and analyse several simple aggregation procedures. Our approach is closely related to work
in judgment aggregation, but with the crucial difference that we adopt an open world assumption, by distinguishing between
facts not included in an agent’s ontology and facts explicitly negated in an agent’s ontology
The influence of tense in adverbial quantification
We argue that there is a crucial difference between determiner and adverbial quantification. Following Herburger [2000] and von Fintel [1994], we assume that determiner quantifiers quantify over individuals and adverbial quantifiers over eventualities. While it is usually assumed that the semantics of sentences with determiner quantifiers and those with adverbial quantifiers basically come out the same, we will show by way of new data that quantification over events is more restricted than quantification over individuals. This is because eventualities in contrast to individuals have to be located in time which is done using contextual information according to a pragmatic resolution strategy. If the contextual information and the tense information given in the respective sentence contradict each other, the sentence is uninterpretable. We conclude that this is the reason why in these cases adverbial quantification, i.e. quantification over eventualities, is impossible whereas quantification over individuals is fine
Modelling Combinatorial Auctions in Linear Logic
We show that linear logic can serve as an expressive framework
in which to model a rich variety of combinatorial auction
mechanisms. Due to its resource-sensitive nature, linear
logic can easily represent bids in combinatorial auctions in
which goods may be sold in multiple units, and we show
how it naturally generalises several bidding languages familiar
from the literature. Moreover, the winner determination
problem, i.e., the problem of computing an allocation of
goods to bidders producing a certain amount of revenue for
the auctioneer, can be modelled as the problem of finding a
proof for a particular linear logic sequent
Negotiating Socially Optimal Allocations of Resources
A multiagent system may be thought of as an artificial society of autonomous
software agents and we can apply concepts borrowed from welfare economics and
social choice theory to assess the social welfare of such an agent society. In
this paper, we study an abstract negotiation framework where agents can agree
on multilateral deals to exchange bundles of indivisible resources. We then
analyse how these deals affect social welfare for different instances of the
basic framework and different interpretations of the concept of social welfare
itself. In particular, we show how certain classes of deals are both sufficient
and necessary to guarantee that a socially optimal allocation of resources will
be reached eventually
- …