RUB | Fakultät für Philosophie und Erziehungswissenschaft | Institut für Philosophie II
    Workgroup Home | Christian tiny_christian.stra_er.jpg | Dunja tiny_dunja._e_elja.jpg | Jesse tiny_jesse.heyninck.jpg | Mathieu tiny_mathieu.beirlaen.jpg | FAQ for members

Talking Recent Publications

Table of Contents

This site concerns our regular meetings on recent publications which are relevant to the research project. The idea is that members of the research group give concise talks highlighting interesting ideas in recent publications.

The idea is to keep things compact so that

  1. people are motivated to give presentations since they are not very time-involving
  2. people are motivated to attend presentations since they are not very time-involving

Below is a list of interesting new articles. Feel free to add some more by mailing them to defeasible-reasoning@rub.de.

Interesting new articles

DONE Argumentation-based Ranking Logics; Leila Amgoud, Jonathan Ben-Naim, Jonathan Ben

This paper was discussed as a session in the SS2014-course on nonmonotonic logic with Jesse and Georg.

Abstract

This paper proposes a novel family of argumentation-based logics for handling inconsistency. Starting with a base logic, it builds arguments and attack relations between them. The novelty of the approach lies in the fact that arguments are evaluated using a ranking semantics which rank-orders arguments from the most acceptable to the least acceptable ones. Naturally, a second novelty is that the conclusions to be drawn are ranked with regard to plausibility. We provide a couple of axioms that such logics should enjoy …

DONE On the equivalence of logic-based argumentation systems; Leila Amgoud, Srdjan Vesic   Jesse

Jesse will present this paper at [2015-05-20 Wed].

Abstract

Equivalence between two argumentation systems means mainly that the two systems return the same outputs. It can be used for different purposes, namely in order to show whether two systems that are built over the same knowledge base but with distinct attack relations return the same outputs, and more importantly to check whether an infinite system can be reduced into a finite one. Recently, the equivalence between abstract argumentation systems was investigated. Two categories of equivalence criteria were …

DONE The Epistemic Benefit of Transient Diversity; Kevin J. S. Zollman

Abstract

There is growing interest in understanding and eliciting division of labor within groups of scientists. This paper illustrates the need for this division of labor through a historical example, and a formal model is presented to better analyze situations of this type. Analysis of this model reveals that a division of labor can be maintained in two different ways: by limiting information or by endowing the scientists with extreme beliefs. If both features are present however, cognitive diversity is maintained indefinitely, and as a result agents fail to converge to the truth. Beyond the mechanisms for creating diversity suggested here, this shows that the real epistemic goal is not diversity but transient diversity.

DONE The Logic of Reasons; Shyam Nair, John Horty   Mathieu

Mathieu will present this one at [2015-06-03 Wed].

Abstract

Reasons figure large in our ordinary talk of deliberating about or justifying actions or conclusions. Suppose, for example, you want to convince a friend to dine with you at Obelisk tonight. Typically, you will offer reasons—there is a new chef, the reviews have been excellent. Or suppose you want to explain why you believe raccoons have been in the back yard. You will offer your evidence, again, typically, in the form of reasons—the garbage was broken into, those tracks look like raccoon prints. In spite of their prevalence in our …

TODO The ‘built-in opponent’ conception of logic and deduction; Catarina Dutilh Novaes

TODO An Axiomatic Analysis of Structured Argumentation for Prioritized Default Reasoning; Dung

Abstract

Several systems of argument-based and non-argumentbased semantics have been proposed for prioritized default reasoning. As the proposed semantics often sanction contradictory conclusions (even for skeptical reasoners), there is a fundamental need for guidelines for understanding and evaluating them, especially their conceptual foundations and relationships. In this paper, we introduce several natural axioms for structural argumentation with preferences that capture both the consistency and closure postulates. …

TODO A Discussion Protocol for Grounded Semantics (proofs); Caminada

Abstract

We introduce an argument-based discussion game where the ability to win the game for a particular argument coincides with the argument being in the grounded extension. Our game differs from previous work in that (i) the number of moves is linear (instead of exponential) wrt the strongly admissible set that the game is constructing,(ii) winning the game does not rely on cooperation from the other player (that is, the game is winning strategy based),(iii) a single game won by the proponent is sufficient to show …

TODO Explaining Bayesian Networks using Argumentation; Sjoerd T Timmer, John-Jules Ch Meyer, Henry Prakken, Silja Renooij, Bart Verheij

Abstract

Qualitative and quantitative systems to deal with uncertainty coexist. Bayesian networks are a well known tool in probabilistic reasoning. For non-statistical experts, however, Bayesian networks may be hard to interpret. Especially since the inner workings of Bayesian networks are complicated they may appear as black box models. Argumentation approaches, on the contrary, emphasise the derivation of results. Argumentation models, however, have notorious difficulty dealing with probabilities. In this paper we formalise a …

TODO An approach to argumentation-based reasoning under uncertainty; Hengfei Li, Alice Toniolo, Nir Oren, Timothy J Norman

Abstract

Argumentation is an important mechanism for nonmonotonic reasoning. Extending argumentation to permit reasoning about uncertainty would result in reasoners capable of operating in a wide variety of realistic domains. This paper describes one such formalism, which associates uncertainty with abstract argument, thereby allowing us to determine the level of uncertainty with respect to argument justification. We describe an application of this approach within CISpaces, a virtual space for collaborative intelligence …

Author: Workgroup for Non-Monotonic Logics and Formal Argumentation

Created: 2015-06-02 Tue 16:22

Emacs 24.5.1 (Org mode 8.2.10)

Validate