No Arabic abstract
This paper combines two studies: a topological semantics for epistemic notions and abstract argumentation theory. In our combined setting, we use a topological semantics to represent the structure of an agents collection of evidence, and we use argumentation theory to single out the relevant sets of evidence through which a notion of beliefs grounded on arguments is defined. We discuss the formal properties of this newly defined notion, providing also a formal language with a matching modality together with a sound and complete axiom system for it. Despite the fact that our agent can combine her evidence in a rational way (captured via the topological structure), argument-based beliefs are not closed under conjunction. This illustrates the difference between an agents reasoning abilities (i.e. the way she is able to combine her available evidence) and the closure properties of her beliefs. We use this point to argue for why the failure of closure under conjunction of belief should not bear the burden of the failure of rationality.
In this work, we introduce a new approach for the efficient solution of autonomous decision and planning problems, with a special focus on decision making under uncertainty and belief space planning (BSP) in high-dimensional state spaces. Usually, to solve the decision problem, we identify the optimal action, according to some objective function. We claim that we can sometimes generate and solve an analogous yet simplified decision problem, which can be solved more efficiently; a wise simplification method can lead to the same action selection, or one for which the maximal loss can be guaranteed. Furthermore, such simplification is separated from the state inference, and does not compromise its accuracy, as the selected action would finally be applied on the original state. First, we present the concept for general decision problems, and provide a theoretical framework for a coherent formulation of the approach. We then practically apply these ideas to BSP problems, which can be simplified by considering a sparse approximation of the initial (Gaussian) belief. The scalable belief sparsification algorithm we provide is able to yield solutions which are guaranteed to be consistent with the original problem. We demonstrate the benefits of the approach in the solution of a highly realistic active-SLAM problem, and manage to significantly reduce computation time, with practically no loss in the quality of solution. This work is conceptual and fundamental, and holds numerous possible extensions.
The main aim of the present paper is to use a proof system for hybrid modal logic to formalize what are called falsebelief tasks in cognitive psychology, thereby investigating the interplay between cognition and logical reasoning about belief. We consider two differe
The standard problem setting in Dec-POMDPs is self-play, where the goal is to find a set of policies that play optimally together. Policies learned through self-play may adopt arbitrary conventions and implicitly rely on multi-step reasoning based on fragile assumptions about other agents actions and thus fail when paired with humans or independently trained agents at test time. To address this, we present off-belief learning (OBL). At each timestep OBL agents follow a policy $pi_1$ that is optimized assuming past actions were taken by a given, fixed policy ($pi_0$), but assuming that future actions will be taken by $pi_1$. When $pi_0$ is uniform random, OBL converges to an optimal policy that does not rely on inferences based on other agents behavior (an optimal grounded policy). OBL can be iterated in a hierarchy, where the optimal policy from one level becomes the input to the next, thereby introducing multi-level cognitive reasoning in a controlled manner. Unlike existing approaches, which may converge to any equilibrium policy, OBL converges to a unique policy, making it suitable for zero-shot coordination (ZSC). OBL can be scaled to high-dimensional settings with a fictitious transition mechanism and shows strong performance in both a toy-setting and the benchmark human-AI & ZSC problem Hanabi.
Traditional automated theorem provers have relied on manually tuned heuristics to guide how they perform proof search. Recently, however, there has been a surge of interest in the design of learning mechanisms that can be integrated into theorem provers to improve their performance automatically. In this work, we introduce TRAIL, a deep learning-based approach to theorem proving that characterizes core elements of saturation-based theorem proving within a neural framework. TRAIL leverages (a) an effective graph neural network for representing logical formulas, (b) a novel neural representation of the state of a saturation-based theorem prover in terms of processed clauses and available actions, and (c) a novel representation of the inference selection process as an attention-based action policy. We show through a systematic analysis that these components allow TRAIL to significantly outperform previous reinforcement learning-based theorem provers on two standard benchmark datasets (up to 36% more theorems proved). In addition, to the best of our knowledge, TRAIL is the first reinforcement learning-based approach to exceed the performance of a state-of-the-art traditional theorem prover on a standard theorem proving benchmark (solving up to 17% more problems).
In this paper, we reexamine the Movie Graph Argument, which demonstrates a basic incompatibility between computationalism and materialism. We discover that the incompatibility is only manifest in singular classical-like universes. If we accept that we live in a Multiverse, then the incompatibility goes away, but in that case another line of argument shows that with computationalism, the fundamental, or primitive materiality has no causal influence on what is observed, which must must be derivable from basic arithmetic properties.