Search

Fairness is central to the ethical and responsible development and use of AI systems, with a large number of frameworks and formal notions of algorithmic fairness being available. However, many of the fairness solutions proposed revolve around technical considerations and not the needs of and consequences for the most impacted communities. We therefore want to take the focus away from definitions and allow for the inclusion of societal and relational aspects to represent how the effects of AI systems impact and are experienced by individuals and social groups. In this paper, we do this by means of proposing the ACROCPoLis framework to represent allocation processes with a modeling emphasis on fairness aspects. The framework provides a shared vocabulary in which the factors relevant to fairness assessments for different situations and procedures are made explicit, as well as their interrelationships. This enables us to compare analogous situations, to highlight the differences in dissimilar situations, and to capture differing interpretations of the same situation by different stakeholders., Comment: To appear in the proceedings of ACM FAccT 2023

Developed and used responsibly Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a force for global sustainable development. Given this opportunity, we expect that the many of the existing guidelines and recommendations for trustworthy or responsible AI will provide explicit guidance on how AI can contribute to the achievement of United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This would in particular be the case for the AI strategies of the Nordic countries, at least given their high ranking and overall political focus when it comes to the achievement of the SDGs. In this paper, we present an analysis of existing AI recommendations from 10 different countries or organisations based on topic modelling techniques to identify how much these strategy documents refer to the SDGs. The analysis shows no significant difference on how much these documents refer to SDGs. Moreover, the Nordic countries are not different from the others albeit their long-term commitment to SDGs. More importantly, references to \textit{gender equality} (SDG 5) and \textit{inequality} (SDG 10), as well as references to environmental impact of AI development and use, and in particular the consequences for life on earth, are notably missing from the guidelines., Comment: IJCAI-AIofAI 2022 : 2nd Workshop on Adverse Impacts and Collateral Effects of AI Technologies

To measure node importance, network scientists employ centrality scores that typically take a microscopic or macroscopic perspective, relying on node features or global network structure. However, traditional centrality measures such as degree centrality, betweenness centrality, or PageRank neglect the community structure found in real-world networks. To study node importance based on network flows from a mesoscopic perspective, we analytically derive a community-aware information-theoretic centrality score based on network flow and the coding principles behind the map equation: map equation centrality. Map equation centrality measures how much further we can compress the network's modular description by not coding for random walker transitions to the respective node, using an adapted coding scheme and determining node importance from a network flow-based point of view. The information-theoretic centrality measure can be determined from a node's local network context alone because changes to the coding scheme only affect other nodes in the same module. Map equation centrality is agnostic to the chosen network flow model and allows researchers to select the model that best reflects the dynamics of the process under study. Applied to synthetic networks, we highlight how our approach enables a more fine-grained differentiation between nodes than node-local or network-global measures. Predicting influential nodes for two different dynamical processes on real-world networks with traditional and other community-aware centrality measures, we find that activating nodes based on map equation centrality scores tends to create the largest cascades in a linear threshold model.

This paper is preoccupied with the following question: given a (possibly opaque) learning system, how can we understand whether its behaviour adheres to governance constraints? The answer can be quite simple: we just need to "ask" the system about it. We propose to construct an investigator agent to query a learning agent -- the suspect agent -- to investigate its adherence to a given ethical policy in the context of an information-seeking dialogue, modeled in formal argumentation settings. This formal dialogue framework is the main contribution of this paper. Through it, we break down compliance checking mechanisms into three modular components, each of which can be tailored to various needs in a vast amount of ways: an investigator agent, a suspect agent, and an acceptance protocol determining whether the responses of the suspect agent comply with the policy. This acceptance protocol presents a fundamentally different approach to aggregation: rather than using quantitative methods to deal with the non-determinism of a learning system, we leverage the use of argumentation semantics to investigate the notion of properties holding consistently. Overall, we argue that the introduced formal dialogue framework opens many avenues both in the area of compliance checking and in the analysis of properties of opaque systems., Comment: Accepted at AAMAS 2021

By considering rational agents, we focus on the problem of selecting goals out of a set of incompatible ones. We consider three forms of incompatibility introduced by Castelfranchi and Paglieri, namely the terminal, the instrumental (or based on resources), and the superfluity. We represent the agent's plans by means of structured arguments whose premises are pervaded with uncertainty. We measure the strength of these arguments in order to determine the set of compatible goals. We propose two novel ways for calculating the strength of these arguments, depending on the kind of incompatibility that exists between them. The first one is the logical strength value, it is denoted by a three-dimensional vector, which is calculated from a probabilistic interval associated with each argument. The vector represents the precision of the interval, the location of it, and the combination of precision and location. This type of representation and treatment of the strength of a structured argument has not been defined before by the state of the art. The second way for calculating the strength of the argument is based on the cost of the plans (regarding the necessary resources) and the preference of the goals associated with the plans. Considering our novel approach for measuring the strength of structured arguments, we propose a semantics for the selection of plans and goals that is based on Dung's abstract argumentation theory. Finally, we make a theoretical evaluation of our proposal., Comment: 14 pages, 4 figures, accepted in the Iberoamerican Journal of Artificial Intelligence. arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:2009.05186

Some abstract argumentation approaches consider that arguments have a degree of uncertainty, which impacts on the degree of uncertainty of the extensions obtained from a abstract argumentation framework (AAF) under a semantics. In these approaches, both the uncertainty of the arguments and of the extensions are modeled by means of precise probability values. However, in many real life situations the exact probabilities values are unknown and sometimes there is a need for aggregating the probability values of different sources. In this paper, we tackle the problem of calculating the degree of uncertainty of the extensions considering that the probability values of the arguments are imprecise. We use credal sets to model the uncertainty values of arguments and from these credal sets, we calculate the lower and upper bounds of the extensions. We study some properties of the suggested approach and illustrate it with an scenario of decision making., Comment: 8 pages, 2 figures, Accepted in The 15th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2019)

During the first step of practical reasoning, i.e. deliberation, an intelligent agent generates a set of pursuable goals and then selects which of them he commits to achieve. An intelligent agent may in general generate multiple pursuable goals, which may be incompatible among them. In this paper, we focus on the definition, identification and resolution of these incompatibilities. The suggested approach considers the three forms of incompatibility introduced by Castelfranchi and Paglieri, namely the terminal incompatibility, the instrumental or resources incompatibility and the superfluity. We characterise computationally these forms of incompatibility by means of arguments that represent the plans that allow an agent to achieve his goals. Thus, the incompatibility among goals is defined based on the conflicts among their plans, which are represented by means of attacks in an argumentation framework. We also work on the problem of goals selection; we propose to use abstract argumentation theory to deal with this problem, i.e. by applying argumentation semantics. We use a modified version of the "cleaner world" scenario in order to illustrate the performance of our proposal., Comment: 31 pages, 9 figures, Accepted in the International Journal of Approximate Reasoning (2019)

A multitude of agent-oriented software engineering frameworks exist, most of which are developed by the academic multi-agent systems community. However, these frameworks often impose programming paradigms on their users that are challenging to learn for engineers who are used to modern high-level programming languages such as JavaScript and Python. To show how the adoption of agent-oriented programming by the software engineering mainstream can be facilitated, we provide a lean JavaScript library prototype for implementing reasoning-loop agents. The library focuses on core agent programming concepts and refrains from imposing further restrictions on the programming approach. To illustrate its usefulness, we show how the library can be applied to multi-agent systems simulations on the web, deployed to cloud-hosted function-as-a-service environments, and embedded in Python-based data science tools., Comment: Accepted for the post-proceedings of EMAS 2019

Abstract argumentation has emerged as a method for non-monotonic reasoning that has gained popularity in the symbolic artificial intelligence community. In the literature, the different approaches to abstract argumentation that were refined over the years are typically evaluated from a formal logics perspective; an analysis that is based on models of economically rational decision-making does not exist. In this paper, we work towards addressing this issue by analyzing abstract argumentation from the perspective of the rational man paradigm in microeconomic theory. To assess under which conditions abstract argumentation-based decision-making can be considered economically rational, we derive reference independence as a non-monotonic inference property from a formal model of economic rationality and create a new argumentation principle that ensures compliance with this property. We then compare the reference independence principle with other reasoning principles, in particular with cautious monotony and rational monotony. We show that the argumentation semantics as proposed in Dung's seminal paper, as well as other semantics we evaluate -- with the exception of naive semantics and the SCC-recursive CF2 semantics -- violate the reference independence principle. Consequently, we investigate how structural properties of argumentation frameworks impact the reference independence principle, and identify cyclic expansions (both even and odd cycles) as the root of the problem. Finally, we put reference independence into the context of preference-based argumentation and show that for this argumentation variant, which explicitly models preferences, reference independence cannot be ensured in a straight-forward manner., Comment: To appear in the Journal of Logic and Computation

Identifying and resolving conflicts of interests is a key challenge when designing autonomous agents. For example, such conflicts often occur when complex information systems interact persuasively with humans and are in the future likely to arise in non-human agent-to-agent interaction. We introduce a theoretical framework for an empathic autonomous agent that proactively identifies potential conflicts of interests in interactions with other agents (and humans) by considering their utility functions and comparing them with its own preferences using a system of shared values to find a solution all agents consider acceptable. To illustrate how empathic autonomous agents work, we provide running examples and a simple prototype implementation in a general-purpose programing language. To give a high-level overview of our work, we propose a reasoning-loop architecture for our empathic agent., Comment: Accepted for: Engineering Multi-Agent Systems, 6th International Workshop, EMAS 2018, Stockholm, Sweden, 14-15 July, 2018, Revised, Selected, and Invited Papers

In a previous publication, we introduced the core concepts of empathic agents as agents that use a combination of utility-based and rule-based approaches to resolve conflicts when interacting with other agents in their environment. In this work, we implement proof-of-concept prototypes of empathic agents with the multi-agent systems development framework Jason and apply argumentation theory to extend the previously introduced concepts to account for inconsistencies between the beliefs of different agents. We then analyze the feasibility of different admissible set-based argumentation semantics to resolve these inconsistencies. As a result of the analysis we identify the maximal ideal extension as the most feasible argumentation semantics for the problem in focus., Comment: Accepted for/presented at the 16th European Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (EUMAS 2018)

Intelligent technologies, in particular systems to promote health and well-being, are inherently centered around the human being, and they need to interrelate with human activities at their core. While social sciences provide angles to study such activities, e.g., within the framework of cultural-historical activity theory, there is no formal approach to give an account of complex human activities from a Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR) perspective. Our goal is to develop a logic-based framework to specify complex activities that is directly informed by activity theory. There, complex activity refers to the process that mediates the relation between a subject and some motivating object which in turn generates a hierarchy of goals that direct actions. We introduce a new temporal logic to formalise key concepts from activity theory and study various inference problems in our framework. We furthermore discuss how to use Answer-Set Programming as a KR shell for activity reasoning that allows to solve various reasoning tasks in a uniform way., Comment: 24 pages

This volume contains the papers presented at Arg-LPNMR 2016: First International Workshop on Argumentation in Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning held on July 8-10, 2016 in New York City, NY.

Characterizations of semi-stable and stage extensions in terms of 2-valued logical models are presented. To this end, the so-called GL-supported and GL-stage models are defined. These two classes of logical models are logic programming counterparts of the notion of range which is an established concept in argumentation semantics., Comment: 16 pages, to appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP)

In this paper, a possibilistic disjunctive logic programming approach for modeling uncertain, incomplete and inconsistent information is defined. This approach introduces the use of possibilistic disjunctive clauses which are able to capture incomplete information and incomplete states of a knowledge base at the same time. By considering a possibilistic logic program as a possibilistic logic theory, a construction of a possibilistic logic programming semantic based on answer sets and the proof theory of possibilistic logic is defined. It shows that this possibilistic semantics for disjunctive logic programs can be characterized by a fixed-point operator. It is also shown that the suggested possibilistic semantics can be computed by a resolution algorithm and the consideration of optimal refutations from a possibilistic logic theory. In order to manage inconsistent possibilistic logic programs, a preference criterion between inconsistent possibilistic models is defined; in addition, the approach of cuts for restoring consistency of an inconsistent possibilistic knowledge base is adopted. The approach is illustrated in a medical scenario., Comment: 37 pages, 5 figures. To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP)

Given an argumentation framework AF, we introduce a mapping function that constructs a disjunctive logic program P, such that the preferred extensions of AF correspond to the stable models of P, after intersecting each stable model with the relevant atoms. The given mapping function is of polynomial size w.r.t. AF. In particular, we identify that there is a direct relationship between the minimal models of a propositional formula and the preferred extensions of an argumentation framework by working on representing the defeated arguments. Then we show how to infer the preferred extensions of an argumentation framework by using UNSAT algorithms and disjunctive stable model solvers. The relevance of this result is that we define a direct relationship between one of the most satisfactory argumentation semantics and one of the most successful approach of non-monotonic reasoning i.e., logic programming with the stable model semantics., Comment: 17 pages, 2 Figures; to appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP)