Explaining the outcome of knowledge-based systems; a discussion-based approach

Many inferences made in everyday life are only valid in the absence of explicit counter information. This has led to the development of nonmonotonic logics. The kind of reasoning performed by these logics can be difficult to explain to the average end-user of a knowledge based system that implements them. Although the system can still give advice, it is hard for the user to assess the rationale be- hind this advice. In this paper we propose an argumentation approach that enables the advice to be assessed through an interactive dialogue with the system much like the discussion one might have with a col- league. The aim of thie dialogue is for the system to convince the user that the advice is well-founded

Self-reported price of cigarettes, consumption and compensatory behaviours in a cohort of Mexican smokers before and after a cigarette tax increase

This paper presents a novel SAT-based approach for the computation of extensions in abstract argumentation, with focus on preferred semantics, and an empirical evaluation of its performances. The approach is based on the idea of reducing the problem of computing complete extensions to a SAT problem and then using a depth-first search method to derive preferred extensions. The proposed approach has been tested using two distinct SAT solvers and compared with three state-of-the-art systems for preferred extension computation. It turns out that the proposed approach delivers significantly better performances in the large majority of the considered cases

Persuasive argumentation and epistemic attitudes

These slides present the main notions and results of a work under construction that was presented in the 2nd DaLí Workshop, Dynamic Logic: New Trends and Applications in Porto, 9 October, 2019 and later published in the Lectures Notes in Computer Science (vol 12005). The work develops a formal study of persuasive dialogues among individuals, taking into account the epistemic attitudes of the involved agents. Abstract argumentation and dynamic epistemic logic provide the necessary tools for such an analysis. The interested reader is referred to the paper for further detailsUniversidad de Málaga. Campus de Excelencia Internacional Andalucía Tech

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

A cross-Atlantic descriptive policy analysis of differences in anti-poverty approaches in Europe and the United States

Hervorming Sociale Regelgevin

Welfare Reform in the United States revisited: A policy overview analysis

Hervorming Sociale Regelgevin

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