Exploiting Game Theory for Analysing Justifications
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2008.01609v1
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 14:45:08 GMT
- Title: Exploiting Game Theory for Analysing Justifications
- Authors: Simon Marynissen, Bart Bogaerts and Marc Denecker
- Abstract summary: We continue the study of justification theory by means of three major contributions.
The first is studying the relation between justification theory and game theory.
The second contribution is studying under which condition two different dialects of justification theory coincide.
The third contribution is establishing a precise criterion of when a semantics induced by justification theory yields consistent results.
- Score: 13.72913891724593
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Justification theory is a unifying semantic framework. While it has its roots
in non-monotonic logics, it can be applied to various areas in computer
science, especially in explainable reasoning; its most central concept is a
justification: an explanation why a property holds (or does not hold) in a
model. In this paper, we continue the study of justification theory by means of
three major contributions. The first is studying the relation between
justification theory and game theory. We show that justification frameworks can
be seen as a special type of games. The established connection provides the
theoretical foundations for our next two contributions. The second contribution
is studying under which condition two different dialects of justification
theory (graphs as explanations vs trees as explanations) coincide. The third
contribution is establishing a precise criterion of when a semantics induced by
justification theory yields consistent results. In the past proving that such
semantics were consistent took cumbersome and elaborate proofs. We show that
these criteria are indeed satisfied for all common semantics of logic
programming. This paper is under consideration for acceptance in Theory and
Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).
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) - A Note on an Inferentialist Approach to Resource Semantics [48.65926948745294]
'Inferentialism' is the view that meaning is given in terms of inferential behaviour.
This paper shows how 'inferentialism' enables a versatile and expressive framework for resource semantics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-10T14:13:21Z) - The Causal Axioms of Algebraic Quantum Field Theory: A Diagnostic [0.0]
Algebraic quantum field theory puts forward three "causal axioms" that aim to characterize the theory as one that implements relativistic causation.
This paper aims to show, in a minimally technical way, that none of them fully explains the notion of causation appropriate for AQFT.
I advocate for a holistic interpretation of how the axioms characterize the causal structure of AQFT against the strategy in the literature to rivalize the axioms and privilege one among them.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-12T11:00:28Z) - Strengthening Consistency Results in Modal Logic [0.0]
A fundamental question in modal logic is whether a given theory is consistent, but consistent with what?
A typical way to address this question identifies a choice of background knowledge axioms (say, S4, D, etc.) and then shows the assumptions codified by the theory in question to be consistent with those background axioms.
This paper introduces generic theories for propositional modal logic to address consistency results in a more robust way.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-11T07:05:37Z) - MetaLogic: Logical Reasoning Explanations with Fine-Grained Structure [129.8481568648651]
We propose a benchmark to investigate models' logical reasoning capabilities in complex real-life scenarios.
Based on the multi-hop chain of reasoning, the explanation form includes three main components.
We evaluate the current best models' performance on this new explanation form.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-10-22T16:01:13Z) - Tree-Like Justification Systems are Consistent [0.0]
Two variants of justification theory exist: one in which justifications are trees and one in which they are graphs.
In this work we resolve the consistency problem once and for all for the tree-like setting by showing that all reasonable tree-like justification systems are consistent.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-08-05T10:48:08Z) - Discourse-Aware Graph Networks for Textual Logical Reasoning [142.0097357999134]
Passage-level logical relations represent entailment or contradiction between propositional units (e.g., a concluding sentence)
We propose logic structural-constraint modeling to solve the logical reasoning QA and introduce discourse-aware graph networks (DAGNs)
The networks first construct logic graphs leveraging in-line discourse connectives and generic logic theories, then learn logic representations by end-to-end evolving the logic relations with an edge-reasoning mechanism and updating the graph features.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-07-04T14:38:49Z) - A Quantitative Symbolic Approach to Individual Human Reasoning [0.0]
We take findings from the literature and show how these, formalized as cognitive principles within a logical framework, can establish a quantitative notion of reasoning.
We employ techniques from non-monotonic reasoning and computer science, namely, a solving paradigm called answer set programming (ASP)
Finally, we can fruitfully use plausibility reasoning in ASP to test the effects of an existing experiment and explain different majority responses.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-05-10T16:43:47Z) - Unscrambling the omelette of causation and inference: The framework of
causal-inferential theories [0.0]
We introduce the notion of a causal-inferential theory using a process-theoretic formalism.
Recasting the notions of operational and realist theories in this mold clarifies what a realist account of an experiment offers beyond an operational account.
We argue that if one can identify axioms for a realist causal-inferential theory such that the notions of causation and inference can differ from their conventional (classical) interpretations, then one has the means of defining an intrinsically quantum notion of realism.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-09-07T17:58:22Z) - Logical Neural Networks [51.46602187496816]
We propose a novel framework seamlessly providing key properties of both neural nets (learning) and symbolic logic (knowledge and reasoning)
Every neuron has a meaning as a component of a formula in a weighted real-valued logic, yielding a highly intepretable disentangled representation.
Inference is omni rather than focused on predefined target variables, and corresponds to logical reasoning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-06-23T16:55:45Z) - Towards Clarifying the Theory of the Deconfounder [47.442102892407405]
This paper studies multiple causal inference and proposes the deconfounder algorithm.
Several refinements have been suggested around the theory of the deconfounder.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-03-10T19:59:03Z)
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.