Showing 1–6 of 6 results for author: Dyrkolbotn, S

Paraconsistency, resolution and relevance

Authors: Michal Walicki, Sjur Dyrkolbotn

Abstract: Digraphs provide an alternative syntax for propositional logic, with digraph kernels corresponding to classical models. Semikernels generalize kernels and we identify a subset of well-behaved semikernels that provides nontrivial models for inconsistent theories, specializing to the classical semantics for the consistent ones. Direct (instead of refutational) reasoning with classical resolution is… ▽ More Digraphs provide an alternative syntax for propositional logic, with digraph kernels corresponding to classical models. Semikernels generalize kernels and we identify a subset of well-behaved semikernels that provides nontrivial models for inconsistent theories, specializing to the classical semantics for the consistent ones. Direct (instead of refutational) reasoning with classical resolution is sound and complete for this semantics, when augmented with a specific weakening which, in particular, excludes Ex Falso. Dropping all forms of weakening yields reasoning which also avoids typical fallacies of relevance. △ Less

Submitted 8 June, 2019; originally announced June 2019.

On Preemption and Overdetermination in Formal Theories of Causality

Authors: Sjur K Dyrkolbotn

Abstract: One of the key challenges when looking for the causes of a complex event is to determine the causal status of factors that are neither individually necessary nor individually sufficient to produce that event. In order to reason about how such factors should be taken into account, we need a vocabulary to distinguish different cases. In philosophy, the concept of overdetermination and the concept of… ▽ More One of the key challenges when looking for the causes of a complex event is to determine the causal status of factors that are neither individually necessary nor individually sufficient to produce that event. In order to reason about how such factors should be taken into account, we need a vocabulary to distinguish different cases. In philosophy, the concept of overdetermination and the concept of preemption serve an important purpose in this regard, although their exact meaning tends to remain elusive. In this paper, I provide theory-neutral definitions of these concepts using structural equations in the Halpern-Pearl tradition. While my definitions do not presuppose any particular causal theory, they take such a theory as a variable parameter. This enables us to specify formal constraints on theories of causality, in terms of a pre-theoretic understanding of what preemption and overdetermination actually mean. I demonstrate the usefulness of this by presenting and arguing for what I call the principle of presumption. Roughly speaking, this principle states that a possible cause can only be regarded as having been preempted if there is independent evidence to support such an inference. I conclude by showing that the principle of presumption is violated by the two main theories of causality formulated in the Halpern-Pearl tradition. The paper concludes by defining the class of empirical causal theories, characterised in terms of a fixed-point of counterfactual reasoning about difference-making. It is argued that theories of actual causality ought to be empirical. △ Less

Submitted 9 October, 2017; originally announced October 2017.

Comments: In Proceedings CREST 2017, arXiv:1710.02770

Journal ref: EPTCS 259, 2017, pp. 1-15

Computing consensus: A logic for reasoning about deliberative processes based on argumentation

Authors: Truls Pedersen, Sjur Dyrkolbotn

Abstract: We consider multi-agent argumentation, where each agent's view of the arguments is encoded as an argumentation framework (AF). Then we study deliberative processes than can occur on this basis. We think of a deliberative process as taking the shape of a stepwise aggregation of a single joint AF, and we are interested in reasoning about the space of possible outcomes. The only restriction we place… ▽ More We consider multi-agent argumentation, where each agent's view of the arguments is encoded as an argumentation framework (AF). Then we study deliberative processes than can occur on this basis. We think of a deliberative process as taking the shape of a stepwise aggregation of a single joint AF, and we are interested in reasoning about the space of possible outcomes. The only restriction we place on deliberative processes is that they should satisfy faithfulness, a postulate amounting to requiring that whenever deliberation leads to a new relationship being introduced between two arguments, this relationship is endorsed by at least one participating agent. We use modal logic to reason about the resulting deliberative structures, and we provide some technical results on model checking. We also give an example and suggest some directions for future work. △ Less

Submitted 7 August, 2014; originally announced August 2014.

Comments: Presented at the 1st International Workshop on Argument for Agreement and Assurance (AAA 2013)

ACM Class: F.4.1

Big, but not unruly: Tractable norms for anonymous game structures

Authors: Truls Pedersen, Sjur Dyrkolbotn, Piotr Kaźmierczak

Abstract: We present a new strategic logic NCHATL that allows for reasoning about norm compliance on concurrent game structures that satisfy anonymity. We represent such game structures compactly, avoiding models that have exponential size in the number of agents. Then we show that model checking can be done in polynomial time with respect to this compact representation, even for normative systems that are… ▽ More We present a new strategic logic NCHATL that allows for reasoning about norm compliance on concurrent game structures that satisfy anonymity. We represent such game structures compactly, avoiding models that have exponential size in the number of agents. Then we show that model checking can be done in polynomial time with respect to this compact representation, even for normative systems that are not anonymous. That is, as long as the underlying game structures are anonymous, model checking normative formulas is tractable even if norms can prescribe different sets of forbidden actions to different agents. △ Less

Submitted 27 May, 2014; originally announced May 2014.

Comments: Accepted at COIN@PRIMA 2013 workshop and presented on December 3rd, 2013 in Dunedin, New Zealand. http://coin2013-prima.tudelft.nl/

MSC Class: 68T27; 68T42 ACM Class: I.2.11

Concurrent Game Structures with Roles

Authors: Truls Pedersen, Sjur Dyrkolbotn, Piotr Kaźmierczak, Erik Parmann

Abstract: In the following paper we present a new semantics for the well-known strategic logic ATL. It is based on adding roles to concurrent game structures, that is at every state, each agent belongs to exactly one role, and the role specifies what actions are available to him at that state. We show advantages of the new semantics, provide motivating examples based on sensor networks, and analyze model ch… ▽ More In the following paper we present a new semantics for the well-known strategic logic ATL. It is based on adding roles to concurrent game structures, that is at every state, each agent belongs to exactly one role, and the role specifies what actions are available to him at that state. We show advantages of the new semantics, provide motivating examples based on sensor networks, and analyze model checking complexity. △ Less

Submitted 4 March, 2013; originally announced March 2013.

Comments: In Proceedings SR 2013, arXiv:1303.0071

ACM Class: F.4.1

Journal ref: EPTCS 112, 2013, pp. 61-69

No big deal: introducing roles to reduce the size of ATL models

Authors: Sjur Dyrkolbotn, Piotr Kaźmierczak, Erik Parmann, Truls Pedersen

Abstract: In the following paper we present a new semantics for the well-known strategic logic ATL. It is based on adding roles to concurrent game structures, that is at every state, each agent belongs to exactly one role, and the role specifies what actions are available to him at that state. We show advantages of the new semantics, analyze model checking complexity and prove equivalence between standard A… ▽ More In the following paper we present a new semantics for the well-known strategic logic ATL. It is based on adding roles to concurrent game structures, that is at every state, each agent belongs to exactly one role, and the role specifies what actions are available to him at that state. We show advantages of the new semantics, analyze model checking complexity and prove equivalence between standard ATL semantics and our new approach. △ Less

Submitted 16 April, 2012; originally announced April 2012.

Comments: Accepted for presentation at LAMAS 2012 workshop on June 5, 2012 in Valencia, Spain

MSC Class: 68T27; 68T42 ACM Class: F.4.1