By Elena Cabrio, Sara Tonelli, Serena Villata (auth.), João Leite, Tran Cao Son, Paolo Torroni, Leon van der Torre, Stefan Woltran (eds.)

This booklet constitutes the lawsuits of the 14th overseas Workshop on Computational good judgment in Multi-Agent platforms, CLIMA XIV, held in Corunna, Spain, in September 2013. The 23 normal papers have been conscientiously reviewed and chosen from forty four submissions and provided with 4 invited talks. the aim of the CLIMA workshops is to supply a discussion board for discussing thoughts, in response to computational good judgment, for representing, programming and reasoning approximately brokers and multi-agent platforms in a proper manner. This variation will function precise classes: Argumentation applied sciences and Norms and Normative Multi-Agent Systems.

Show description

Read Online or Download Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems: 14th International Workshop, CLIMA XIV, Corunna, Spain, September 16-18, 2013. Proceedings PDF

Best logic books

Errors of Reasoning. Naturalizing the Logic of Inference

Error of Reasoning is the long-awaited continuation of the author's research of the good judgment of cognitive structures. the current concentration is the person human reasoner working lower than the stipulations and pressures of genuine lifestyles with capacities and assets the wildlife makes on hand to him.

The Is-Ought Problem: An Investigation in Philosophical Logic

Can OUGHT be derived from IS? This publication offers an research of this accepted challenge by way of alethic-deontic predicate good judgment. New during this examine is the leitmotif of relevance: is-ought inferences certainly exist, yet they're all inappropriate in an actual logical feel. New evidence strategies identify this end result for terribly wide periods of logics.

Functional and Logic Programming: 5th International Symposium, FLOPS 2001 Tokyo, Japan, March 7–9, 2001 Proceedings

This publication constitutes the refereed court cases of the fifth foreign Symposium on practical and common sense Programming, FLOPS 2001, held in Tokyo, Japan in March 2001. The 21 revised complete papers awarded including 3 invited papers have been conscientiously reviewed and chosen from forty submissions. The ebook bargains topical sections on practical programming, good judgment programming, useful good judgment programming, kinds, application research and transformation, and Lambda calculus.

Additional info for Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems: 14th International Workshop, CLIMA XIV, Corunna, Spain, September 16-18, 2013. Proceedings

Sample text

E. e. incomplete arguments, and/or not understandable when out of context). We report in Table 1 some statistics on the PDTB relations considered in our study. We extract them from the PDTB and report the total number of examples both of implicit and explicit relations (the 50 examples of our dataset were extracted from the explicit relations only, the analysis of implicit relations is left for future work). Since PDTB annotators were allowed to assign more than one relation label, we report only the relations whose first label is the one reported in the first column.

E. e. F ≡st W G is shown. st,MC st,MC Finally, we show that F ≡st G. Assume F ≡st /W . W G ⇒ F ≡W W G and F ≡ Using the characterization theorem in [10] (Proposition 3) we deduce Est (F ) = Est (G). Since we assumed that F and G are not minimal change equivalent we deduce G F (E) ≠ Nst,W (E) for some E ⊆ A(F )(= A(G)). g. we assume Nst,W G F Nst,W (E) = 0 and Nst,W (E) = ∞ (Theorem 6, Definition 10 in [7]). t. E ′ ∈ Est (F ). Consequently, E ′ ∈ Est (G) in contradiction to G Nst,W (E) = ∞. In consideration of the counter-examples 2 and 3 it follows that the converse directions do not hold because the considered AFs share the same arguments.

T. t. weak expansion standard equivalence Fig. 6. Preferred semantics in case of self-loop-free AFs Proof. In this proof we assume that the considered AFs do not possess self-loops. Consequently, in consideration of the results presented in Figure 4 it suffices to show the pr following two relations. First, F ≡pr S G ⇒ F ≡N G (already shown in [6, Proposition 4]) and second, F ≡pr,MC G ⇒ F ≡pr S W G. Due to space limitations we omit this proof. Consider again the counter-examples given in the proof of the relations depicted in Figure 6.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.16 of 5 – based on 14 votes