-
Complete equational theories for classical and quantum Gaussian relations
Authors:
Robert I. Booth,
Titouan Carette,
Cole Comfort
Abstract:
We give generators and relations for the hypergraph props of Gaussian relations and positive affine Lagrangian relations. The former extends Gaussian probabilistic processes by completely-uninformative priors, and the latter extends Gaussian quantum mechanics with infinitely-squeezed states. These presentations are given by adding a generator to the presentation of real affine relations and of rea…
▽ More
We give generators and relations for the hypergraph props of Gaussian relations and positive affine Lagrangian relations. The former extends Gaussian probabilistic processes by completely-uninformative priors, and the latter extends Gaussian quantum mechanics with infinitely-squeezed states. These presentations are given by adding a generator to the presentation of real affine relations and of real affine Lagrangian relations which freely codiscards effects, as well as certain rotations.
The presentation of positive affine Lagrangian relations provides a rigorous justification for many common yet informal calculations in the quantum physics literature involving infinite-squeezing. Our presentation naturally extends Menicucci et al.'s graph-theoretic representation of Gaussian quantum states with a representation for Gaussian transformations. Using this graphical calculus, we also give a graphical proof of Braunstein and Kimble's continuous-variable quantum teleportation protocol. We also interpret the LOv-calculus, a diagrammatic calculus for reasoning about passive linear-optical quantum circuits in our graphical calculus. Moreover, we show how our presentation allows for additional optical operations such as active squeezing.
△ Less
Submitted 10 April, 2024; v1 submitted 15 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Graphical Symplectic Algebra
Authors:
Robert I. Booth,
Titouan Carette,
Cole Comfort
Abstract:
We give complete presentations for the dagger-compact props of affine Lagrangian and coisotropic relations over an arbitrary field. This provides a unified family of graphical languages for both affinely constrained classical mechanical systems, as well as odd-prime-dimensional stabiliser quantum circuits. To this end, we present affine Lagrangian relations by a particular class of undirected colo…
▽ More
We give complete presentations for the dagger-compact props of affine Lagrangian and coisotropic relations over an arbitrary field. This provides a unified family of graphical languages for both affinely constrained classical mechanical systems, as well as odd-prime-dimensional stabiliser quantum circuits. To this end, we present affine Lagrangian relations by a particular class of undirected coloured graphs. In order to reason about composite systems, we introduce a powerful scalable notation where the vertices of these graphs are themselves coloured by graphs. In the setting of stabiliser quantum mechanics, this scalable notation gives an extremely concise description of graph states, which can be composed via ``phased spider fusion.'' Likewise, in the classical mechanical setting of electrical circuits, we show that impedance matrices for reciprocal networks are presented in essentially the same way.
△ Less
Submitted 18 March, 2024; v1 submitted 15 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
-
Confidence-Building Measures for Artificial Intelligence: Workshop Proceedings
Authors:
Sarah Shoker,
Andrew Reddie,
Sarah Barrington,
Ruby Booth,
Miles Brundage,
Husanjot Chahal,
Michael Depp,
Bill Drexel,
Ritwik Gupta,
Marina Favaro,
Jake Hecla,
Alan Hickey,
Margarita Konaev,
Kirthi Kumar,
Nathan Lambert,
Andrew Lohn,
Cullen O'Keefe,
Nazneen Rajani,
Michael Sellitto,
Robert Trager,
Leah Walker,
Alexa Wehsener,
Jessica Young
Abstract:
Foundation models could eventually introduce several pathways for undermining state security: accidents, inadvertent escalation, unintentional conflict, the proliferation of weapons, and the interference with human diplomacy are just a few on a long list. The Confidence-Building Measures for Artificial Intelligence workshop hosted by the Geopolitics Team at OpenAI and the Berkeley Risk and Securit…
▽ More
Foundation models could eventually introduce several pathways for undermining state security: accidents, inadvertent escalation, unintentional conflict, the proliferation of weapons, and the interference with human diplomacy are just a few on a long list. The Confidence-Building Measures for Artificial Intelligence workshop hosted by the Geopolitics Team at OpenAI and the Berkeley Risk and Security Lab at the University of California brought together a multistakeholder group to think through the tools and strategies to mitigate the potential risks introduced by foundation models to international security. Originating in the Cold War, confidence-building measures (CBMs) are actions that reduce hostility, prevent conflict escalation, and improve trust between parties. The flexibility of CBMs make them a key instrument for navigating the rapid changes in the foundation model landscape. Participants identified the following CBMs that directly apply to foundation models and which are further explained in this conference proceedings: 1. crisis hotlines 2. incident sharing 3. model, transparency, and system cards 4. content provenance and watermarks 5. collaborative red teaming and table-top exercises and 6. dataset and evaluation sharing. Because most foundation model developers are non-government entities, many CBMs will need to involve a wider stakeholder community. These measures can be implemented either by AI labs or by relevant government actors.
△ Less
Submitted 3 August, 2023; v1 submitted 1 August, 2023;
originally announced August 2023.
-
A Contribution to the Defense of Liquid Democracy
Authors:
Gregory Butterworth,
Richard Booth
Abstract:
Liquid democracy is a hybrid direct-representative decision making process that provides each voter with the option of either voting directly or to delegate their vote to another voter, i.e., to a representative of their choice. One of the proposed advantages of liquid democracy is that, in general, it is assumed that voters will delegate their vote to others that are better informed, which leads…
▽ More
Liquid democracy is a hybrid direct-representative decision making process that provides each voter with the option of either voting directly or to delegate their vote to another voter, i.e., to a representative of their choice. One of the proposed advantages of liquid democracy is that, in general, it is assumed that voters will delegate their vote to others that are better informed, which leads to more informed and better decisions. Considering an audience from various knowledge domains, we provide an accessible high-level analysis of a prominent critique of liquid democracy by Caragiannis and Micha. Caragiannis and Micha's critique contains three central topics: 1. Analysis using their $α$-delegation model, which does not assume delegation to the more informed; 2. Novel delegation network structures where it is advantageous to delegate to the less informed rather than the more informed; and 3. Due to NP hardness, the implied impracticability of a social network obtaining an optimal delegation structure. We show that in the real world, Caragiannis and Micha's critique of liquid democracy has little or no relevance. Respectively, our critique is based on: 1. The identification of incorrect $α$-delegation model assumptions; 2. A lack of novel delegation structures and their effect in a real-world implementation of liquid democracy, which would be guaranteed with constraints that sensibly distribute voting power; and 3. The irrelevance of an optimal delegation structure if the correct result is guaranteed regardless. We conclude that Caragiannis and Micha's critique has no significant negative relevance to the proposition of liquid democracy.
△ Less
Submitted 3 August, 2023; v1 submitted 28 June, 2022;
originally announced June 2022.
-
Who's the Expert? On Multi-source Belief Change
Authors:
Joseph Singleton,
Richard Booth
Abstract:
Consider the following belief change/merging scenario. A group of information sources gives a sequence of reports about the state of the world at various instances (e.g. different points in time). The true states at these instances are unknown to us. The sources have varying levels of expertise, also unknown to us, and may be knowledgeable on some topics but not others. This may cause sources to r…
▽ More
Consider the following belief change/merging scenario. A group of information sources gives a sequence of reports about the state of the world at various instances (e.g. different points in time). The true states at these instances are unknown to us. The sources have varying levels of expertise, also unknown to us, and may be knowledgeable on some topics but not others. This may cause sources to report false statements in areas they lack expertise. What should we believe on the basis of these reports? We provide a framework in which to explore this problem, based on an extension of propositional logic with expertise formulas. This extended language allows us to express beliefs about the state of the world at each instance, as well as beliefs about the expertise of each source. We propose several postulates, provide a couple of families of concrete operators, and analyse these operators with respect to the postulates.
△ Less
Submitted 29 April, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
-
Rankings for Bipartite Tournaments via Chain Editing
Authors:
Joseph Singleton,
Richard Booth
Abstract:
Ranking the participants of a tournament has applications in voting, paired comparisons analysis, sports and other domains. In this paper we introduce bipartite tournaments, which model situations in which two different kinds of entity compete indirectly via matches against players of the opposite kind; examples include education (students/exam questions) and solo sports (golfers/courses). In part…
▽ More
Ranking the participants of a tournament has applications in voting, paired comparisons analysis, sports and other domains. In this paper we introduce bipartite tournaments, which model situations in which two different kinds of entity compete indirectly via matches against players of the opposite kind; examples include education (students/exam questions) and solo sports (golfers/courses). In particular, we look to find rankings via chain graphs, which correspond to bipartite tournaments in which the sets of adversaries defeated by the players on one side are nested with respect to set inclusion. Tournaments of this form have a natural and appealing ranking associated with them. We apply chain editing -- finding the minimum number of edge changes required to form a chain graph -- as a new mechanism for tournament ranking. The properties of these rankings are investigated in a probabilistic setting, where they arise as maximum likelihood estimators, and through the axiomatic method of social choice theory. Despite some nice properties, two problems remain: an important anonymity axiom is violated, and chain editing is NP-hard. We address both issues by relaxing the minimisation constraint in chain editing, and characterise the resulting ranking methods via a greedy approximation algorithm.
△ Less
Submitted 7 January, 2021;
originally announced January 2021.
-
Revision by Conditionals: From Hook to Arrow
Authors:
Jake Chandler,
Richard Booth
Abstract:
The belief revision literature has largely focussed on the issue of how to revise one's beliefs in the light of information regarding matters of fact. Here we turn to an important but comparatively neglected issue: How might one extend a revision operator to handle conditionals as input? Our approach to this question of 'conditional revision' is distinctive insofar as it abstracts from the controv…
▽ More
The belief revision literature has largely focussed on the issue of how to revise one's beliefs in the light of information regarding matters of fact. Here we turn to an important but comparatively neglected issue: How might one extend a revision operator to handle conditionals as input? Our approach to this question of 'conditional revision' is distinctive insofar as it abstracts from the controversial details of how to revise by factual sentences. We introduce a 'plug and play' method for uniquely extending any iterated belief revision operator to the conditional case. The flexibility of our approach is achieved by having the result of a conditional revision by a Ramsey Test conditional ('arrow') determined by that of a plain revision by its corresponding material conditional ('hook'). It is shown to satisfy a number of new constraints that are of independent interest.
△ Less
Submitted 29 June, 2020;
originally announced June 2020.
-
Elementary Iterated Revision and the Levi Identity
Authors:
Jake Chandler,
Richard Booth
Abstract:
Recent work has considered the problem of extending to the case of iterated belief change the so-called `Harper Identity' (HI), which defines single-shot contraction in terms of single-shot revision. The present paper considers the prospects of providing a similar extension of the Levi Identity (LI), in which the direction of definition runs the other way. We restrict our attention here to the thr…
▽ More
Recent work has considered the problem of extending to the case of iterated belief change the so-called `Harper Identity' (HI), which defines single-shot contraction in terms of single-shot revision. The present paper considers the prospects of providing a similar extension of the Levi Identity (LI), in which the direction of definition runs the other way. We restrict our attention here to the three classic iterated revision operators--natural, restrained and lexicographic, for which we provide here the first collective characterisation in the literature, under the appellation of `elementary' operators. We consider two prima facie plausible ways of extending (LI). The first proposal involves the use of the rational closure operator to offer a `reductive' account of iterated revision in terms of iterated contraction. The second, which doesn't commit to reductionism, was put forward some years ago by Nayak et al. We establish that, for elementary revision operators and under mild assumptions regarding contraction, Nayak's proposal is equivalent to a new set of postulates formalising the claim that contraction by $\neg A$ should be considered to be a kind of `mild' revision by $A$. We then show that these, in turn, under slightly weaker assumptions, jointly amount to the conjunction of a pair of constraints on the extension of (HI) that were recently proposed in the literature. Finally, we consider the consequences of endorsing both suggestions and show that this would yield an identification of rational revision with natural revision. We close the paper by discussing the general prospects for defining iterated revision in terms of iterated contraction.
△ Less
Submitted 2 July, 2019;
originally announced July 2019.
-
On Rational Entailment for Propositional Typicality Logic
Authors:
Richard Booth,
Giovanni Casini,
Thomas Meyer,
Ivan Varzinczak
Abstract:
Propositional Typicality Logic (PTL) is a recently proposed logic, obtained by enriching classical propositional logic with a typicality operator capturing the most typical (alias normal or conventional) situations in which a given sentence holds. The semantics of PTL is in terms of ranked models as studied in the well-known KLM approach to preferential reasoning and therefore KLM-style rational c…
▽ More
Propositional Typicality Logic (PTL) is a recently proposed logic, obtained by enriching classical propositional logic with a typicality operator capturing the most typical (alias normal or conventional) situations in which a given sentence holds. The semantics of PTL is in terms of ranked models as studied in the well-known KLM approach to preferential reasoning and therefore KLM-style rational consequence relations can be embedded in PTL. In spite of the non-monotonic features introduced by the semantics adopted for the typicality operator, the obvious Tarskian definition of entailment for PTL remains monotonic and is therefore not appropriate in many contexts. Our first important result is an impossibility theorem showing that a set of proposed postulates that at first all seem appropriate for a notion of entailment with regard to typicality cannot be satisfied simultaneously. Closer inspection reveals that this result is best interpreted as an argument for advocating the development of more than one type of PTL entailment. In the spirit of this interpretation, we investigate three different (semantic) versions of entailment for PTL, each one based on the definition of rational closure as introduced by Lehmann and Magidor for KLM-style conditionals, and constructed using different notions of minimality.
△ Less
Submitted 3 February, 2020; v1 submitted 28 September, 2018;
originally announced September 2018.
-
On Strengthening the Logic of Iterated Belief Revision: Proper Ordinal Interval Operators
Authors:
Richard Booth,
Jake Chandler
Abstract:
Darwiche and Pearl's seminal 1997 article outlined a number of baseline principles for a logic of iterated belief revision. These principles, the DP postulates, have been supplemented in a number of alternative ways. Most of the suggestions made have resulted in a form of `reductionism' that identifies belief states with orderings of worlds. However, this position has recently been criticised as b…
▽ More
Darwiche and Pearl's seminal 1997 article outlined a number of baseline principles for a logic of iterated belief revision. These principles, the DP postulates, have been supplemented in a number of alternative ways. Most of the suggestions made have resulted in a form of `reductionism' that identifies belief states with orderings of worlds. However, this position has recently been criticised as being unacceptably strong. Other proposals, such as the popular principle (P), aka `Independence', characteristic of `admissible' revision operators, remain commendably more modest. In this paper, we supplement both the DP postulates and (P) with a number of novel conditions. While the DP postulates constrain the relation between a prior and a posterior conditional belief set, our new principles notably govern the relation between two posterior conditional belief sets obtained from a common prior by different revisions. We show that operators from the resulting family, which subsumes both lexicographic and restrained revision, can be represented as relating belief states that are associated with a `proper ordinal interval' (POI) assignment, a structure more fine-grained than a simple ordering of worlds. We close the paper by noting that these operators satisfy iterated versions of a large number of AGM era postulates, including Superexpansion, that are not sound for admissible operators in general.
△ Less
Submitted 25 July, 2018;
originally announced July 2018.
-
Extending the Harper Identity to Iterated Belief Change
Authors:
Jake Chandler,
Richard Booth
Abstract:
The field of iterated belief change has focused mainly on revision, with the other main operator of AGM belief change theory, i.e. contraction, receiving relatively little attention. In this paper we extend the Harper Identity from single-step change to define iterated contraction in terms of iterated revision. Specifically, just as the Harper Identity provides a recipe for defining the belief set…
▽ More
The field of iterated belief change has focused mainly on revision, with the other main operator of AGM belief change theory, i.e. contraction, receiving relatively little attention. In this paper we extend the Harper Identity from single-step change to define iterated contraction in terms of iterated revision. Specifically, just as the Harper Identity provides a recipe for defining the belief set resulting from contracting A in terms of (i) the initial belief set and (ii) the belief set resulting from revision by not-A, we look at ways to define the plausibility ordering over worlds resulting from contracting A in terms of (iii) the initial plausibility ordering, and (iv) the plausibility ordering resulting from revision by not-A. After noting that the most straightforward such extension leads to a trivialisation of the space of permissible orderings, we provide a family of operators for combining plausibility orderings that avoid such a result. These operators are characterised in our domain of interest by a pair of intuitively compelling properties, which turn out to enable the derivation of a number of iterated contraction postulates from postulates for iterated revision. We finish by observing that a salient member of this family allows for the derivation of counterparts for contraction of some well known iterated revision operators, as well as for defining new iterated contraction operators.
△ Less
Submitted 18 April, 2016;
originally announced April 2016.
-
Abduction and Dialogical Proof in Argumentation and Logic Programming
Authors:
Richard Booth,
Dov Gabbay,
Souhila Kaci,
Tjitze Rienstra,
Leendert van der Torre
Abstract:
We develop a model of abduction in abstract argumentation, where changes to an argumentation framework act as hypotheses to explain the support of an observation. We present dialogical proof theories for the main decision problems (i.e., finding hypothe- ses that explain skeptical/credulous support) and we show that our model can be instantiated on the basis of abductive logic programs.
We develop a model of abduction in abstract argumentation, where changes to an argumentation framework act as hypotheses to explain the support of an observation. We present dialogical proof theories for the main decision problems (i.e., finding hypothe- ses that explain skeptical/credulous support) and we show that our model can be instantiated on the basis of abductive logic programs.
△ Less
Submitted 15 July, 2014;
originally announced July 2014.
-
Judgment Aggregation in Multi-Agent Argumentation
Authors:
Edmond Awad,
Richard Booth,
Fernando Tohme,
Iyad Rahwan
Abstract:
Given a set of conflicting arguments, there can exist multiple plausible opinions about which arguments should be accepted, rejected, or deemed undecided. We study the problem of how multiple such judgments can be aggregated. We define the problem by adapting various classical social-choice-theoretic properties for the argumentation domain. We show that while argument-wise plurality voting satisfi…
▽ More
Given a set of conflicting arguments, there can exist multiple plausible opinions about which arguments should be accepted, rejected, or deemed undecided. We study the problem of how multiple such judgments can be aggregated. We define the problem by adapting various classical social-choice-theoretic properties for the argumentation domain. We show that while argument-wise plurality voting satisfies many properties, it fails to guarantee the collective rationality of the outcome, and struggles with ties. We then present more general results, proving multiple impossibility results on the existence of any good aggregation operator. After characterising the sufficient and necessary conditions for satisfying collective rationality, we study whether restricting the domain of argument-wise plurality voting to classical semantics allows us to escape the impossibility result. We close by listing graph-theoretic restrictions under which argument-wise plurality rule does produce collectively rational outcomes. In addition to identifying fundamental barriers to collective argument evaluation, our results open up the door for a new research agenda for the argumentation and computational social choice communities.
△ Less
Submitted 19 July, 2015; v1 submitted 26 May, 2014;
originally announced May 2014.
-
On the Link between Partial Meet, Kernel, and Infra Contraction and its Application to Horn Logic
Authors:
Richard Booth,
Thomas Meyer,
Ivan Varzinczak,
Renata Wassermann
Abstract:
Standard belief change assumes an underlying logic containing full classical propositional logic. However, there are good reasons for considering belief change in less expressive logics as well. In this paper we build on recent investigations by Delgrande on contraction for Horn logic. We show that the standard basic form of contraction, partial meet, is too strong in the Horn case. This result st…
▽ More
Standard belief change assumes an underlying logic containing full classical propositional logic. However, there are good reasons for considering belief change in less expressive logics as well. In this paper we build on recent investigations by Delgrande on contraction for Horn logic. We show that the standard basic form of contraction, partial meet, is too strong in the Horn case. This result stands in contrast to Delgrande's conjecture that orderly maxichoice is the appropriate form of contraction for Horn logic. We then define a more appropriate notion of basic contraction for the Horn case, influenced by the convexity property holding for full propositional logic and which we refer to as infra contraction. The main contribution of this work is a result which shows that the construction method for Horn contraction for belief sets based on our infra remainder sets corresponds exactly to Hansson's classical kernel contraction for belief sets, when restricted to Horn logic. This result is obtained via a detour through contraction for belief bases. We prove that kernel contraction for belief bases produces precisely the same results as the belief base version of infra contraction. The use of belief bases to obtain this result provides evidence for the conjecture that Horn belief change is best viewed as a hybrid version of belief set change and belief base change. One of the consequences of the link with base contraction is the provision of a representation result for Horn contraction for belief sets in which a version of the Core-retainment postulate features.
△ Less
Submitted 16 January, 2014;
originally announced January 2014.
-
On revising fuzzy belief bases
Authors:
Richard Booth,
Eva Richter
Abstract:
We look at the problem of revising fuzzy belief bases, i.e., belief base revision in which both formulas in the base as well as revision-input formulas can come attached with varying truth-degrees. Working within a very general framework for fuzzy logic which is able to capture a variety of types of inference under uncertainty, such as truth-functional fuzzy logics and certain…
▽ More
We look at the problem of revising fuzzy belief bases, i.e., belief base revision in which both formulas in the base as well as revision-input formulas can come attached with varying truth-degrees. Working within a very general framework for fuzzy logic which is able to capture a variety of types of inference under uncertainty, such as truth-functional fuzzy logics and certain types of probabilistic inference, we show how the idea of rational change from 'crisp' base revision, as embodied by the idea of partial meet revision, can be faithfully extended to revising fuzzy belief bases. We present and axiomatise an operation of partial meet fuzzy revision and illustrate how the operation works in several important special instances of the framework.
△ Less
Submitted 19 October, 2012;
originally announced December 2012.
-
Admissible and Restrained Revision
Authors:
R. Booth,
T. Meyer
Abstract:
As partial justification of their framework for iterated belief revision Darwiche and Pearl convincingly argued against Boutiliers natural revision and provided a prototypical revision operator that fits into their scheme. We show that the Darwiche-Pearl arguments lead naturally to the acceptance of a smaller class of operators which we refer to as admissible. Admissible revision ensures that the…
▽ More
As partial justification of their framework for iterated belief revision Darwiche and Pearl convincingly argued against Boutiliers natural revision and provided a prototypical revision operator that fits into their scheme. We show that the Darwiche-Pearl arguments lead naturally to the acceptance of a smaller class of operators which we refer to as admissible. Admissible revision ensures that the penultimate input is not ignored completely, thereby eliminating natural revision, but includes the Darwiche-Pearl operator, Nayaks lexicographic revision operator, and a newly introduced operator called restrained revision. We demonstrate that restrained revision is the most conservative of admissible revision operators, effecting as few changes as possible, while lexicographic revision is the least conservative, and point out that restrained revision can also be viewed as a composite operator, consisting of natural revision preceded by an application of a "backwards revision" operator previously studied by Papini. Finally, we propose the establishment of a principled approach for choosing an appropriate revision operator in different contexts and discuss future work.
△ Less
Submitted 28 September, 2011;
originally announced September 2011.
-
The lexicographic closure as a revision process
Authors:
Richard Booth
Abstract:
The connections between nonmonotonic reasoning and belief revision are well-known. A central problem in the area of nonmonotonic reasoning is the problem of default entailment, i.e., when should an item of default information representing "if A is true then, normally, B is true" be said to follow from a given set of items of such information. Many answers to this question have been proposed but,…
▽ More
The connections between nonmonotonic reasoning and belief revision are well-known. A central problem in the area of nonmonotonic reasoning is the problem of default entailment, i.e., when should an item of default information representing "if A is true then, normally, B is true" be said to follow from a given set of items of such information. Many answers to this question have been proposed but, surprisingly, virtually none have attempted any explicit connection to belief revision. The aim of this paper is to give an example of how such a connection can be made by showing how the lexicographic closure of a set of defaults may be conceptualised as a process of iterated revision by sets of sentences. Specifically we use the revision process of Nayak.
△ Less
Submitted 8 March, 2000; v1 submitted 7 March, 2000;
originally announced March 2000.
