Nir Oren

Indirect reciprocity, supported by simple reputation assessment and social norms, has been demonstrated as an effective mechanism for enabling cooperation in populations of self-interested individuals. However, it has been shown that where there is noise in the performance of actions, or in observers’ perceptions, cooperation may not emerge. Higher-order social norms and generosity have been investigated as potential mechanisms to support cooperation in such environments, but are ineffective without additional, limiting, assumptions. In particular, higher-order norms have typically been investigated in cases where reputation is binary (‘good’ or ‘bad’) and where all agents ascribe the same reputation to an individual, implying full and perfect observation of actions. Generosity with an ‘aligned’ strategy, where all agents have the same likelihood of being generous, has been shown to be ineffective where reputation is binary. In this work we consider reciprocity emergence mechanisms in noisy domains and where agent observations may be incomplete or inaccurate. Our hypothesis is that nuanced reputation scores will enable generosity to be more effective, since an individual act of generosity will have a less extreme impact on reputation. We also investigate whether replacing the ‘aligned’ setting for generosity with a ‘non-aligned’ alternative, which we refer to as forgiveness, will support cooperation in noisy partially observable environments, without the level of ‘unjustified benevolence’ exhibited by generosity. We show both analytically and empirically that generosity when combined with fine grained reputation can help cooperation emerge, and that forgiveness can support cooperation in certain settings.

Weighted gradual semantics provide an acceptability degree to each argument representing its final strength, computed based on factors including the argument's background evidence, and taking into account interactions between the argument and others. We introduce five important problems linking gradual semantics and acceptability degrees. First, we re-examine the inverse problem, seeking to identify each argument's initial weights within the argumentation framework which lead to a specific final acceptability degree. Second, we ask whether the function mapping between argument weights and acceptability degrees is one-to-one. Third, we ask if this mapping is a homeomorphism so that small perturbations in weights lead to small perturbation in acceptability degrees and vice versa. Fourth, we ask whether argument weights can be found when preferences, rather than acceptability degrees for arguments are considered. Last, we consider the geometry of the space of valid acceptability degrees, asking whether ``"gaps" exist in this space. While different gradual semantics have been proposed in the literature, in this paper, and building on the geometry of the acceptability degree space, we identify a large family of weighted gradual semantics which contains many of the existing well-known semantics while maintaining desirable properties such as convergence to a unique fixed point and solving all five aforementioned problems.

Responsibility plays a key role in the development and deployment of trustworthy autonomous systems. In this paper, we focus on the problem of strategic reasoning in probabilistic multi-agent systems with responsibility-aware agents. We introduce the logic PATL+R, a variant of Probabilistic Alternating-time Temporal Logic. The novelty of PATL+R lies in its incorporation of modalities for causal responsibility, providing a framework for responsibility-aware multi-agent strategic reasoning. We present an approach to synthesise joint strategies that satisfy an outcome specified in PATL+R, while optimising the share of expected causal responsibility and reward. This provides a notion of balanced distribution of responsibility and reward gain among agents. To this end, we utilise the Nash equilibrium as the solution concept for our strategic reasoning problem and demonstrate how to compute responsibility-aware Nash equilibrium strategies via a reduction to parametric model checking of concurrent stochastic multi-player games.

Many semantics for weighted argumentation frameworks assume that each argument is associated with an initial weight. However, eliciting these initial weights poses challenges: (1) accurately providing a specific numerical value is often difficult, and (2) individuals frequently confuse initial weights with acceptability degrees in the presence of other arguments. To address these issues, we propose an elicitation pipeline that allows one to specify acceptability degree intervals for each argument. By employing gradual semantics, we can refine these intervals when they are rational, restore rationality when they are not, and ultimately identify possible initial weights for each argument.

In this study, we investigated whether transfer learning from macaque monkeys could improve human pose estimation. Current state-of-the-art pose estimation techniques, often employing deep neural networks, can match human annotation in non-clinical datasets. However, they underperform in novel situations, limiting their generalisability to clinical populations with pathological movement patterns. Clinical datasets are not widely available for AI training due to ethical challenges and a lack of data collection. We observe that data from other species may be able to bridge this gap by exposing the network to a broader range of motion cues. We found that utilising data from other species and undertaking transfer learning improved human pose estimation in terms of precision and recall compared to the benchmark, which was trained on humans only. Compared to the benchmark, fewer human training examples were needed for the transfer learning approach (1,000 vs 19,185). These results suggest that macaque pose estimation can improve human pose estimation in clinical situations. Future work should further explore the utility of pose estimation trained with monkey data in clinical populations.

Research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

We present an extension-based approach for computing and verifying preferences in an abstract argumentation system. Although numerous argumentation semantics have been developed previously for identifying acceptable sets of arguments from an argumentation framework, there is a lack of justification behind their acceptability based on implicit argument preferences. Preference-based argumentation frameworks allow one to determine what arguments are justified given a set of preferences. Our research considers the inverse of the standard reasoning problem, i.e., given an abstract argumentation framework and a set of justified arguments, we compute what the possible preferences over arguments are. Furthermore, there is a need to verify (i.e., assess) that the computed preferences would lead to the acceptable sets of arguments. This paper presents a novel approach and algorithm for exhaustively computing and enumerating all possible sets of preferences (restricted to three identified cases) for a conflict-free set of arguments in an abstract argumentation framework. We prove the soundness, completeness and termination of the algorithm. The research establishes that preferences are determined using an extension-based approach after the evaluation phase (acceptability of arguments) rather than stated beforehand. In this work, we focus our research study on grounded, preferred and stable semantics. We show that the complexity of computing sets of preferences is exponential in the number of arguments, and thus, describe an approximate approach and algorithm to compute the preferences. Furthermore, we present novel algorithms for verifying (i.e., assessing) the computed preferences. We provide details of the implementation of the algorithms (source code has been made available), various experiments performed to evaluate the algorithms and the analysis of the results.

In explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) research, the predominant focus has been on interpreting models for experts and practitioners. Model agnostic and local explanation approaches are deemed interpretable and sufficient in many applications. However, in domains like healthcare, where end users are patients without AI or domain expertise, there is an urgent need for model explanations that are more comprehensible and instil trust in the model’s operations. We hypothesise that generating model explanations that are narrative, patient-specific and global (holistic of the model) would enable better understandability and enable decision-making. We test this using a decision tree model to generate both local and global explanations for patients identified as having a high risk of coronary heart disease. These explanations are presented to non-expert users. We find a strong individual preference for a specific type of explanation. The majority of participants prefer global explanations, while a smaller group prefers local explanations. A task based evaluation of mental models of these participants provide valuable feedback to enhance narrative global explanations. This, in turn, guides the design of health informatics systems that are both trustworthy and actionable.

Research has shown that cooperative action struggles to emerge in the noisy variant of the donation game, a simple model of noisy multi-agent systems where indirect reciprocity is required to maximise utility. Such noise can arise when agents may have an incorrect view of the reputation of their interaction partners, or when the actions themselves may fail. Concepts such as generosity, as well as the use of higher-order norms, have been investigated as mechanisms to facilitate cooperation in such environments, but often are not effective or require additional assumptions or infrastructure in the system to operate. In this paper, we demonstrate both analytically and empirically that a simple form of generosity when combined with fine grained reputation can help cooperation emerge. We also show that the use of individual forgiveness strategies rather than the presence of global generosity can support cooperation in such environments.