BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Matthias Thimm

Matthias Thimm contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial Intelligence

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
7works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

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

Published work

7 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Measuring Inconsistency in Declarative Process Specifications

We address the problem of measuring inconsistency in declarative process specifications, with an emphasis on linear temporal logic on fixed traces (LTLff). As we will show, existing inconsistency measures for classical logic cannot provide a meaningful assessment of inconsistency in LTL in general, as they cannot adequately handle the temporal operators. We therefore propose a novel paraconsistent semantics as a framework for inconsistency measurement. We then present two new inconsistency measures based on these semantics and show that they satisfy important desirable properties. We show how these measures can be applied to declarative process models and investigate the computational complexity of the introduced approach.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Revisiting initial sets in abstract argumentation

We revisit the notion of initial sets by Xu and Cayrol, i.e., non-empty minimal admissible sets in abstract argumentation frameworks. Initial sets are a simple concept for analysing conflicts in an abstract argumentation framework and to explain why certain arguments can be accepted. We contribute with new insights on the structure of initial sets and devise a simple non-deterministic construction principle for any admissible set, based on iterative selection of initial sets of the original framework and its induced reducts. In particular, we characterise many existing admissibility-based semantics via this construction principle, thus providing a constructive explanation on the structure of extensions. We also investigate certain problems related to initial sets with respect to their computational complexity.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Measuring Inconsistency over Sequences of Business Rule Cases

In this report, we investigate (element-based) inconsistency measures for multisets of business rule bases. Currently, related works allow to assess individual rule bases, however, as companies might encounter thousands of such instances daily, studying not only individual rule bases separately, but rather also their interrelations becomes necessary, especially in regard to determining suitable re-modelling strategies. We therefore present an approach to induce multiset-measures from arbitrary (traditional) inconsistency measures, propose new rationality postulates for a multiset use-case, and investigate the complexity of various aspects regarding multi-rule base inconsistency measurement.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Epistemic Graphs for Representing and Reasoning with Positive and Negative Influences of Arguments

This paper introduces epistemic graphs as a generalization of the epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation. In these graphs, an argument can be believed or disbelieved up to a given degree, thus providing a more fine--grained alternative to the standard Dung's approaches when it comes to determining the status of a given argument. Furthermore, the flexibility of the epistemic approach allows us to both model the rationale behind the existing semantics as well as completely deviate from them when required. Epistemic graphs can model both attack and support as well as relations that are neither support nor attack. The way other arguments influence a given argument is expressed by the epistemic constraints that can restrict the belief we have in an argument with a varying degree of specificity. The fact that we can specify the rules under which arguments should be evaluated and we can include constraints between unrelated arguments permits the framework to be more context--sensitive. It also allows for better modelling of imperfect agents, which can be important in multi--agent applications.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Towards Ranking-based Semantics for Abstract Argumentation using Conditional Logic Semantics

We propose a novel ranking-based semantics for Dung-style argumentation frameworks with the help of conditional logics. Using an intuitive translation for an argumentation framework to generate conditionals, we can apply nonmonotonic inference systems to generate a ranking on possible worlds. With this ranking we construct a ranking for our arguments. With a small extension to this ranking-based semantics we already satisfy some desirable properties for a ranking over arguments.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Stratified Labelings for Abstract Argumentation

We introduce stratified labelings as a novel semantical approach to abstract argumentation frameworks. Compared to standard labelings, stratified labelings provide a more fine-grained assessment of the controversiality of arguments using ranks instead of the usual labels in, out, and undecided. We relate the framework of stratified labelings to conditional logic and, in particular, to the System Z ranking functions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Measuring Inconsistency in Probabilistic Knowledge Bases

This paper develops an inconsistency measure on conditional probabilistic knowledge bases. The measure is based on fundamental principles for inconsistency measures and thus provides a solid theoretical framework for the treatment of inconsistencies in probabilistic expert systems. We illustrate its usefulness and immediate application on several examples and present some formal results. Building on this measure we use the Shapley value-a well-known solution for coalition games-to define a sophisticated indicator that is not only able to measure inconsistencies but to reveal the causes of inconsistencies in the knowledge base. Altogether these tools guide the knowledge engineer in his aim to restore consistency and therefore enable him to build a consistent and usable knowledge base that can be employed in probabilistic expert systems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access