-
Who's the Expert? On Multi-source Belief Change
Authors:
Joseph Singleton,
Richard Booth
Abstract:
Consider the following belief change/merging scenario. A group of information sources gives a sequence of reports about the state of the world at various instances (e.g. different points in time). The true states at these instances are unknown to us. The sources have varying levels of expertise, also unknown to us, and may be knowledgeable on some topics but not others. This may cause sources to r…
▽ More
Consider the following belief change/merging scenario. A group of information sources gives a sequence of reports about the state of the world at various instances (e.g. different points in time). The true states at these instances are unknown to us. The sources have varying levels of expertise, also unknown to us, and may be knowledgeable on some topics but not others. This may cause sources to report false statements in areas they lack expertise. What should we believe on the basis of these reports? We provide a framework in which to explore this problem, based on an extension of propositional logic with expertise formulas. This extended language allows us to express beliefs about the state of the world at each instance, as well as beliefs about the expertise of each source. We propose several postulates, provide a couple of families of concrete operators, and analyse these operators with respect to the postulates.
△ Less
Submitted 29 April, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
-
A Logic of Expertise
Authors:
Joseph Singleton
Abstract:
In this paper we introduce a simple modal logic framework to reason about the expertise of an information source. In the framework, a source is an expert on a proposition $p$ if they are able to correctly determine the truth value of $p$ in any possible world. We also consider how information may be false, but true after accounting for the lack of expertise of the source. This is relevant for mode…
▽ More
In this paper we introduce a simple modal logic framework to reason about the expertise of an information source. In the framework, a source is an expert on a proposition $p$ if they are able to correctly determine the truth value of $p$ in any possible world. We also consider how information may be false, but true after accounting for the lack of expertise of the source. This is relevant for modelling situations in which information sources make claims beyond their domain of expertise. We use non-standard semantics for the language based on an expertise set with certain closure properties. It turns out there is a close connection between our semantics and S5 epistemic logic, so that expertise can be expressed in terms of knowledge at all possible states. We use this connection to obtain a sound and complete axiomatisation.
△ Less
Submitted 22 July, 2021;
originally announced July 2021.
-
Rankings for Bipartite Tournaments via Chain Editing
Authors:
Joseph Singleton,
Richard Booth
Abstract:
Ranking the participants of a tournament has applications in voting, paired comparisons analysis, sports and other domains. In this paper we introduce bipartite tournaments, which model situations in which two different kinds of entity compete indirectly via matches against players of the opposite kind; examples include education (students/exam questions) and solo sports (golfers/courses). In part…
▽ More
Ranking the participants of a tournament has applications in voting, paired comparisons analysis, sports and other domains. In this paper we introduce bipartite tournaments, which model situations in which two different kinds of entity compete indirectly via matches against players of the opposite kind; examples include education (students/exam questions) and solo sports (golfers/courses). In particular, we look to find rankings via chain graphs, which correspond to bipartite tournaments in which the sets of adversaries defeated by the players on one side are nested with respect to set inclusion. Tournaments of this form have a natural and appealing ranking associated with them. We apply chain editing -- finding the minimum number of edge changes required to form a chain graph -- as a new mechanism for tournament ranking. The properties of these rankings are investigated in a probabilistic setting, where they arise as maximum likelihood estimators, and through the axiomatic method of social choice theory. Despite some nice properties, two problems remain: an important anonymity axiom is violated, and chain editing is NP-hard. We address both issues by relaxing the minimisation constraint in chain editing, and characterise the resulting ranking methods via a greedy approximation algorithm.
△ Less
Submitted 7 January, 2021;
originally announced January 2021.
-
Online Handbook of Argumentation for AI: Volume 1
Authors:
OHAAI Collaboration,
Federico Castagna,
Timotheus Kampik,
Atefeh Keshavarzi Zafarghandi,
Mickaël Lafages,
Jack Mumford,
Christos T. Rodosthenous,
Samy Sá,
Stefan Sarkadi,
Joseph Singleton,
Kenneth Skiba,
Andreas Xydis
Abstract:
This volume contains revised versions of the papers selected for the first volume of the Online Handbook of Argumentation for AI (OHAAI). Previously, formal theories of argument and argument interaction have been proposed and studied, and this has led to the more recent study of computational models of argument. Argumentation, as a field within artificial intelligence (AI), is highly relevant for…
▽ More
This volume contains revised versions of the papers selected for the first volume of the Online Handbook of Argumentation for AI (OHAAI). Previously, formal theories of argument and argument interaction have been proposed and studied, and this has led to the more recent study of computational models of argument. Argumentation, as a field within artificial intelligence (AI), is highly relevant for researchers interested in symbolic representations of knowledge and defeasible reasoning. The purpose of this handbook is to provide an open access and curated anthology for the argumentation research community. OHAAI is designed to serve as a research hub to keep track of the latest and upcoming PhD-driven research on the theory and application of argumentation in all areas related to AI.
△ Less
Submitted 22 June, 2020;
originally announced June 2020.
-
Inferring Concise Specifications of APIs
Authors:
John L. Singleton,
Gary T. Leavens,
Hridesh Rajan,
David R. Cok
Abstract:
Modern software relies on libraries and uses them via application programming interfaces (APIs). Correct API usage as well as many software engineering tasks are enabled when APIs have formal specifications. In this work, we analyze the implementation of each method in an API to infer a formal postcondition. Conventional wisdom is that, if one has preconditions, then one can use the strongest post…
▽ More
Modern software relies on libraries and uses them via application programming interfaces (APIs). Correct API usage as well as many software engineering tasks are enabled when APIs have formal specifications. In this work, we analyze the implementation of each method in an API to infer a formal postcondition. Conventional wisdom is that, if one has preconditions, then one can use the strongest postcondition predicate transformer (SP) to infer postconditions. However, SP yields postconditions that are exponentially large, which makes them difficult to use, either by humans or by tools. Our key idea is an algorithm that converts such exponentially large specifications into a form that is more concise and thus more usable. This is done by leveraging the structure of the specifications that result from the use of SP. We applied our technique to infer postconditions for over 2,300 methods in seven popular Java libraries. Our technique was able to infer specifications for 75.7% of these methods, each of which was verified using an Extended Static Checker. We also found that 84.6% of resulting specifications were less than 1/4 page (20 lines) in length. Our technique was able to reduce the length of SMT proofs needed for verifying implementations by 76.7% and reduced prover execution time by 26.7%.
△ Less
Submitted 16 May, 2019;
originally announced May 2019.
