Statistical modelling of CSP solving algorithms performance

The goal of this work is to try to create a statistical model, based only on easily computable parameters from the CSP problem to predict runtime behaviour of the solving algorithms, and let us choose the best algorithm to solve the problem. Although it seems that the obvious choice should be MAC, experimental results obtained so far show, that with big numbers of variables, other algorithms perfom much better, specially for hard problems in the transition phase

Sensor networks and distributed CSP: communication, computation and complexity

We introduce SensorDCSP, a naturally distributed benchmark based on a real-world application that arises in the context of networked distributed systems. In order to study the performance of Distributed CSP (DisCSP) algorithms in a truly distributed setting, we use a discrete-event network simulator, which allows us to model the impact of different network traffic conditions on the performance of the algorithms. We consider two complete DisCSP algorithms: asynchronous backtracking (ABT) and asynchronous weak commitment search (AWC), and perform performance comparison for these algorithms on both satisfiable and unsatisfiable instances of SensorDCSP. We found that random delays (due to network traffic or in some cases actively introduced by the agents) combined with a dynamic decentralized restart strategy can improve the performance of DisCSP algorithms. In addition, we introduce GSensorDCSP, a plain-embedded version of SensorDCSP that is closely related to various real-life dynamic tracking systems. We perform both analytical and empirical study of this benchmark domain. In particular, this benchmark allows us to study the attractiveness of solution repairing for solving a sequence of DisCSPs that represent the dynamic tracking of a set of moving objects.This work was supported in part by AFOSR (F49620-01-1-0076, Intelligent Information Systems Institute and MURI F49620-01-1-0361), CICYT (TIC2001-1577-C03-03 and TIC2003-00950), DARPA (F30602-00-2- 0530), an NSF CAREER award (IIS-9734128), and an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of the US Government

Measuring Polarization in Online Debates

Social networks can be a very successful tool to engage users to discuss relevant topics for society. However, there are also some dangers that are associated with them, such as the emergence of polarization in online discussions. Recently, there has been a growing interest to try to understand this phenomenon, as some consider that this can be harmful concerning the building of a healthy society in which citizens get used to polite discussions and even listening to opinions that may be different from theirs. In this work, we face the problem of defining a precise measure that can quantify in a meaningful way the level of polarization present in an online discussion. We focus on the Reddit social network, given that its primary focus is to foster discussions, in contrast to other social networks that have some other uses. Our measure is based on two different characteristics of an online discussion: the existence of a balanced bipartition of the users of the discussion, where one partition contains mainly users in agreement (regarding the topic of the discussion) and the other users in disagreement, and the degree of negativity of the sentiment of the interactions between these two groups of users. We discuss how different characteristics of the discussions affect the value of our polarization measure, and we finally perform an empirical evaluation over different sets of Reddit discussions about diverse classes of topics. Our results seem to indicate that our measure can capture differences in the polarization level of different discussions, which can be further understood when analyzing the values of the different factors used to define the measure.This research was funded by Spanish Project PID2019-111544GB-C22 (MINECO/FEDER), by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under Grant Agreements 723596, 768824, 764025 and 814945, and by 2017 SGR 1537

Formalisation and logical properties of the maximal ideal recursive semantics for weighted defeasible logic programming

Possibilistic defeasible logic programming (P-DeLP) is a logic programming framework which combines features from argumentation theory and logic programming, in which defeasible rules are attached with weights expressing their relative belief or preference strength. In P-DeLP,a conclusion succeeds if there exists an argument that entails the conclusion and this argument is found to be undefeated by a warrant procedure that systematically explores the universe of arguments in order to present an exhaustive synthesis of the relevant chains of pros and cons for the given conclusion. Recently, we have proposed a new warrant recursive semantics for P-DeLP, called Recursive P-DeLP (RP-DeLP for short), based on the claim that the acceptance of an argument should imply also the acceptance of all its sub-arguments which reflect the different premises on which the argument is based. This paper explores the relationship between the exhaustive dialectical analysis-based semantics of P-DeLP and the recursive-based semantics of RP-DeLP, and analyses a non-monotonic inference operator for RP-DeLP which models the expansion of a given program by adding new weighted facts associated with warranted conclusions. Given the recursive-based semantics of RP-DeLP, we have also implemented an argumentation framework for RP-DeLP that is able to compute not only the output of warranted and blocked conclusions, but also explain the reasons behind the status of each conclusion. We have developed this framework as a stand-alone application with a simple text-based input/output interface to be able to use it as part of other artificial intelligence systemsThis research was partially supported by the Spanish projects EdeTRI (TIN2012-39348-C02-01) and AT (CONSOLIDER- INGENIO 2010, CSD2007-00022)

RP-DeLP: a weighted defeasible argumentation framework based on a recursive semantics

In this paper we first define a recursive semantics for warranted formulas in a general defeasible argumentation framework by formalizing a notion of collective (non-binary) conflict among arguments. The recursive semantics for warranted formulas is based on the fact that if the argument is rejected, then all arguments built on it should also be rejected. The main characteristic of our recursive semantics is that an output (extension) of a knowledge base is a pair of sets of warranted and blocked formulas. Arguments for both warranted and blocked formulas are recursively based on warranted formulas but, while warranted formulas do not generate any collective conflict, blocked conclusions do. Formulas that are neither warranted nor blocked correspond to rejected formulas. Second we extend the general defeasible argumentation framework by attaching levels of preference to defeasible knowledge items and by providing a level-wise definition of warranted and blocked formulas. Third we formalize the warrant recursive semantics for the particular framework of Possibilistic Defeasible Logic Programming, we call this particular framework Recursive Possibilistic Defeasible Logic Programming (\mbox{RP-DeLP} for short), and we show its relevance in the scope of Political debates. An RP-DeLP program may have multiple outputs in case of circular definitions of conflicts among arguments. So, we tackle the problem of which output one should consider for an RP-DeLP program with multiple outputs. To this end we define the maximal ideal output of an RP-DeLP program as the set of conclusions which are ultimately warranted and we present an algorithm for computing them in polynomial space and with an upper bound on complexity equal to P^{NP}. Finally, we propose an efficient and scalable implementation of this algorithm that is based on implementing the two main queries of the system, looking for valid arguments and collective conflicts between arguments, using SAT encodings. We perform an experimental evaluation of our SAT based approach when solving test sets of instances with single and multiple preference levels for defeasible knowledge.The authors are very thankful to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments. This research was partially supported by the Spanish projects ARINF (TIN2009- 14704-C03-01), TASSAT (TIN2010-20967-C04-03), EdeTRI (TIN2012-39348-C02-01) and AT (CONSOLIDER- INGENIO 2010, CSD2007-00022)