On abstract F-systems. A graph-theoretic model for paradoxes involving a falsity predicate and its application to argumentation frameworks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.07050v1
• Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 15:07:11 GMT
• Title: On abstract F-systems. A graph-theoretic model for paradoxes involving a falsity predicate and its application to argumentation frameworks
• Authors: Gustavo A. Bodanza
• Abstract summary: F-systems are digraphs that enable to model sentences that predicate the falsity of other sentences. In this paper we present the F-systems model abstracting from all the features of the language in which the represented sentences are expressed.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: F-systems are digraphs that enable to model sentences that predicate the falsity of other sentences. Paradoxes like the Liar and Yablo's can be analyzed with that tool to find graph-theoretic patterns. In this paper we present the F-systems model abstracting from all the features of the language in which the represented sentences are expressed. All that is assumed is the existence of sentences and the binary relation '... affirms the falsity of ...' among them. The possible existence of non-referential sentences is also considered. To model the sets of all the sentences that can jointly be valued as true we introduce the notion of conglomerate, the existence of which guarantees the absence of paradox. Conglomerates also enable to characterize referential contradictions, i.e. sentences that can only be false under a classical valuation due to the interactions with other sentences in the model. A Kripke's style fixed point characterization of groundedness is offered and fixed points which are complete (meaning that every sentence is deemed either true or false) and consistent (meaning that no sentence is deemed true and false) are put in correspondence with conglomerates. Furthermore, argumentation frameworks are special cases of F-systems. We show the relation between local conglomerates and admissible sets of arguments and argue about the usefulness of the concept for argumentation theory.

Related papers

• A Complexity-Based Theory of Compositionality [53.025566128892066]
  In AI, compositional representations can enable a powerful form of out-of-distribution generalization. Here, we propose a formal definition of compositionality that accounts for and extends our intuitions about compositionality. The definition is conceptually simple, quantitative, grounded in algorithmic information theory, and applicable to any representation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T18:37:27Z)
• Evaluating AI Group Fairness: a Fuzzy Logic Perspective [9.876903282565976]
  What constitutes group fairness depends on who is asked and the social context, whereas definitions are often relaxed to accept small deviations from the statistical constraints they set out to impose. Here we decouple definitions of group fairness from the context and from relaxation-related uncertainty by expressing them in the axiomatic system of Basic fuzzy Logic. We show that commonly held propositions standardize the resulting mathematical formulas and we transcribe logic and truth value choices to layperson terms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-27T07:11:48Z)
• Distributional Semantics, Holism, and the Instability of Meaning [0.0]
  A standard objection to meaning holism is the charge of instability. In this article we examine whether the instability objection poses a problem for distributional models of meaning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T14:53:25Z)
• A Semantic Approach to Decidability in Epistemic Planning (Extended Version) [72.77805489645604]
  We use a novel semantic approach to achieve decidability. Specifically, we augment the logic of knowledge S5$_n$ and with an interaction axiom called (knowledge) commutativity. We prove that our framework admits a finitary non-fixpoint characterization of common knowledge, which is of independent interest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-28T11:26:26Z)
• Neural models for Factual Inconsistency Classification with Explanations [17.214921274113284]
  We leverage existing work in linguistics to define five types of factual inconsistencies. We train neural models to predict inconsistency type with explanations, given a (claim, context) sentence pair. Our proposed methods provide a weighted F1 of 87% for inconsistency type classification across the five classes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T06:06:50Z)
• Interpretable Automatic Fine-grained Inconsistency Detection in Text Summarization [56.94741578760294]
  We propose the task of fine-grained inconsistency detection, the goal of which is to predict the fine-grained types of factual errors in a summary. Motivated by how humans inspect factual inconsistency in summaries, we propose an interpretable fine-grained inconsistency detection model, FineGrainFact.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T22:11:47Z)
• The Possibility of Fairness: Revisiting the Impossibility Theorem in Practice [5.175941513195566]
  We show that it is possible to identify a large set of models that satisfy seemingly incompatible fairness constraints. We offer tools and guidance for practitioners to understand when -- and to what degree -- fairness along multiple criteria can be achieved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-13T13:29:24Z)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)
• ProoFVer: Natural Logic Theorem Proving for Fact Verification [24.61301908217728]
  We propose ProoFVer, a proof system for fact verification using natural logic. The generation of proofs makes ProoFVer an explainable system. We find that humans correctly simulate ProoFVer's decisions more often using the proofs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-25T17:23:04Z)
• AmbiFC: Fact-Checking Ambiguous Claims with Evidence [57.7091560922174]
  We present AmbiFC, a fact-checking dataset with 10k claims derived from real-world information needs. We analyze disagreements arising from ambiguity when comparing claims against evidence in AmbiFC. We develop models for predicting veracity handling this ambiguity via soft labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-01T17:40:08Z)
• Measuring Association Between Labels and Free-Text Rationales [60.58672852655487]
  In interpretable NLP, we require faithful rationales that reflect the model's decision-making process for an explained instance. We demonstrate that pipelines, existing models for faithful extractive rationalization on information-extraction style tasks, do not extend as reliably to "reasoning" tasks requiring free-text rationales. We turn to models that jointly predict and rationalize, a class of widely used high-performance models for free-text rationalization whose faithfulness is not yet established.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-24T03:40:56Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.