Source author record

Matteo Cristani

Matteo Cristani appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Artificial Intelligence Logic in Computer Science Computational Complexity Cryptography and Security Multiagent Systems

Catalog footprint

What is connected

5works

5topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2015arXiv

The Rationale behind the Concept of Goal

The paper proposes a fresh look at the concept of goal and advances that motivational attitudes like desire, goal and intention are just facets of the broader notion of (acceptable) outcome. We propose to encode the preferences of an agent as sequences of "alternative acceptable outcomes". We then study how the agent's beliefs and norms can be used to filter the mental attitudes out of the sequences of alternative acceptable outcomes. Finally, we formalise such intuitions in a novel Modal Defeasible Logic and we prove that the resulting formalisation is computationally feasible.

preprint2013arXiv

Strategic Argumentation is NP-Complete

In this paper we study the complexity of strategic argumentation for dialogue games. A dialogue game is a 2-player game where the parties play arguments. We show how to model dialogue games in a skeptical, non-monotonic formalism, and we show that the problem of deciding what move (set of rules) to play at each turn is an NP-complete problem.

preprint2012arXiv

Revision of Defeasible Logic Preferences

There are several contexts of non-monotonic reasoning where a priority between rules is established whose purpose is preventing conflicts. One formalism that has been widely employed for non-monotonic reasoning is the sceptical one known as Defeasible Logic. In Defeasible Logic the tool used for conflict resolution is a preference relation between rules, that establishes the priority among them. In this paper we investigate how to modify such a preference relation in a defeasible logic theory in order to change the conclusions of the theory itself. We argue that the approach we adopt is applicable to legal reasoning where users, in general, cannot change facts or rules, but can propose their preferences about the relative strength of the rules. We provide a comprehensive study of the possible combinatorial cases and we identify and analyse the cases where the revision process is successful. After this analysis, we identify three revision/update operators and study them against the AGM postulates for belief revision operators, to discover that only a part of these postulates are satisfied by the three operators.

preprint2011arXiv

Meaning Negotiation as Inference

Meaning negotiation (MN) is the general process with which agents reach an agreement about the meaning of a set of terms. Artificial Intelligence scholars have dealt with the problem of MN by means of argumentations schemes, beliefs merging and information fusion operators, and ontology alignment but the proposed approaches depend upon the number of participants. In this paper, we give a general model of MN for an arbitrary number of agents, in which each participant discusses with the others her viewpoint by exhibiting it in an actual set of constraints on the meaning of the negotiated terms. We call this presentation of individual viewpoints an angle. The agents do not aim at forming a common viewpoint but, instead, at agreeing about an acceptable common angle. We analyze separately the process of MN by two agents (\emph{bilateral} or \emph{pairwise} MN) and by more than two agents (\emph{multiparty} MN), and we use game theoretic models to understand how the process develops in both cases: the models are Bargaining Game for bilateral MN and English Auction for multiparty MN. We formalize the process of reaching such an agreement by giving a deduction system that comprises of rules that are consistent and adequate for representing MN.

preprint2010arXiv

Blocking Underhand Attacks by Hidden Coalitions (Extended Version)

Similar to what happens between humans in the real world, in open multi-agent systems distributed over the Internet, such as online social networks or wiki technologies, agents often form coalitions by agreeing to act as a whole in order to achieve certain common goals. However, agent coalitions are not always a desirable feature of a system, as malicious or corrupt agents may collaborate in order to subvert or attack the system. In this paper, we consider the problem of hidden coalitions, whose existence and the purposes they aim to achieve are not known to the system, and which carry out so-called underhand attacks. We give a first approach to hidden coalitions by introducing a deterministic method that blocks the actions of potentially dangerous agents, i.e. possibly belonging to such coalitions. We also give a non-deterministic version of this method that blocks the smallest set of potentially dangerous agents. We calculate the computational cost of our two blocking methods, and prove their soundness and completeness.