-
Defense semantics of argumentation: revisit
Authors:
Beishui Liao,
Leendert van der Torre
Abstract:
In this paper we introduce a novel semantics, called defense semantics, for Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks in terms of a notion of (partial) defence, which is a triple encoding that one argument is (partially) defended by another argument via attacking the attacker of the first argument. In terms of defense semantics, we show that defenses related to self-attacked arguments and arguments…
▽ More
In this paper we introduce a novel semantics, called defense semantics, for Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks in terms of a notion of (partial) defence, which is a triple encoding that one argument is (partially) defended by another argument via attacking the attacker of the first argument. In terms of defense semantics, we show that defenses related to self-attacked arguments and arguments in 3-cycles are unsatifiable under any situation and therefore can be removed without affecting the defense semantics of an AF. Then, we introduce a new notion of defense equivalence of AFs, and compare defense equivalence with standard equivalence and strong equivalence, respectively. Finally, by exploiting defense semantics, we define two kinds of reasons for accepting arguments, i.e., direct reasons and root reasons, and a notion of root equivalence of AFs that can be used in argumentation summarization.
△ Less
Submitted 22 November, 2023; v1 submitted 20 November, 2023;
originally announced November 2023.
-
Towards AI Logic for Social Reasoning
Authors:
Huimin Dong,
Réka Markovich,
Leendert van der Torre
Abstract:
Artificial Intelligence (AI) logic formalizes the reasoning of intelligent agents. In this paper, we discuss how an argumentation-based AI logic could be used also to formalize important aspects of social reasoning. Besides reasoning about the knowledge and actions of individual agents, social AI logic can reason also about social dependencies among agents using the rights, obligations and permiss…
▽ More
Artificial Intelligence (AI) logic formalizes the reasoning of intelligent agents. In this paper, we discuss how an argumentation-based AI logic could be used also to formalize important aspects of social reasoning. Besides reasoning about the knowledge and actions of individual agents, social AI logic can reason also about social dependencies among agents using the rights, obligations and permissions of the agents. We discuss four aspects of social AI logic. First, we discuss how rights represent relations between the obligations and permissions of intelligent agents. Second, we discuss how to argue about the right-to-know, a central issue in the recent discussion of privacy and ethics. Third, we discuss how a wide variety of conflicts among intelligent agents can be identified and (sometimes) resolved by comparing formal arguments. Importantly, to cover a wide range of arguments occurring in daily life, also fallacious arguments can be represented and reasoned about. Fourth, we discuss how to argue about the freedom to act for intelligent agents. Examples from social, legal and ethical reasoning highlight the challenges in developing social AI logic. The discussion of the four challenges leads to a research program for argumentation-based social AI logic, contributing towards the future development of AI logic.
△ Less
Submitted 9 October, 2021;
originally announced October 2021.
-
Artificial intelligence in space
Authors:
George Anthony Gal,
Cristiana Santos,
Lucien Rapp,
Réeka Markovich,
Leendert van der Torre
Abstract:
In the next coming years, space activities are expected to undergo a radical transformation with the emergence of new satellite systems or new services which will incorporate the contributions of artificial intelligence and machine learning defined as covering a wide range of innovations from autonomous objects with their own decision-making power to increasingly sophisticated services exploiting…
▽ More
In the next coming years, space activities are expected to undergo a radical transformation with the emergence of new satellite systems or new services which will incorporate the contributions of artificial intelligence and machine learning defined as covering a wide range of innovations from autonomous objects with their own decision-making power to increasingly sophisticated services exploiting very large volumes of information from space. This chapter identifies some of the legal and ethical challenges linked to its use. These legal and ethical challenges call for solutions which the international treaties in force are not sufficient to determine and implement. For this reason, a legal methodology must be developed that makes it possible to link intelligent systems and services to a system of rules applicable thereto. It discusses existing legal AI-based tools amenable for making space law actionable, interoperable and machine readable for future compliance tools.
△ Less
Submitted 22 June, 2020;
originally announced June 2020.
-
Intention as Commitment toward Time
Authors:
Marc van Zee,
Dragan Doder,
Leendert van der Torre,
Mehdi Dastani,
Thomas Icard,
Eric Pacuit
Abstract:
In this paper we address the interplay among intention, time, and belief in dynamic environments. The first contribution is a logic for reasoning about intention, time and belief, in which assumptions of intentions are represented by preconditions of intended actions. Intentions and beliefs are coherent as long as these assumptions are not violated, i.e. as long as intended actions can be performe…
▽ More
In this paper we address the interplay among intention, time, and belief in dynamic environments. The first contribution is a logic for reasoning about intention, time and belief, in which assumptions of intentions are represented by preconditions of intended actions. Intentions and beliefs are coherent as long as these assumptions are not violated, i.e. as long as intended actions can be performed such that their preconditions hold as well. The second contribution is the formalization of what-if scenarios: what happens with intentions and beliefs if a new (possibly conflicting) intention is adopted, or a new fact is learned? An agent is committed to its intended actions as long as its belief-intention database is coherent. We conceptualize intention as commitment toward time and we develop AGM-based postulates for the iterated revision of belief-intention databases, and we prove a Katsuno-Mendelzon-style representation theorem.
△ Less
Submitted 17 April, 2020;
originally announced April 2020.
-
A geometrical view of I/O logic
Authors:
D. Gabbay,
X. Parent,
L. van der Torre
Abstract:
We describe a geometrical account of the I/O logic put forth by Makinson and van der Torre. A soundness and completeness results was reported for the simplest I/O operation called simple-minded, and in the finite case only. On this account a generator acts as a "jump" within a lattice.
We describe a geometrical account of the I/O logic put forth by Makinson and van der Torre. A soundness and completeness results was reported for the simplest I/O operation called simple-minded, and in the finite case only. On this account a generator acts as a "jump" within a lattice.
△ Less
Submitted 28 November, 2019;
originally announced November 2019.
-
SCF2 -- an Argumentation Semantics for Rational Human Judgments on Argument Acceptability: Technical Report
Authors:
Marcos Cramer,
Leendert van der Torre
Abstract:
In abstract argumentation theory, many argumentation semantics have been proposed for evaluating argumentation frameworks. This paper is based on the following research question: Which semantics corresponds well to what humans consider a rational judgment on the acceptability of arguments? There are two systematic ways to approach this research question: A normative perspective is provided by the…
▽ More
In abstract argumentation theory, many argumentation semantics have been proposed for evaluating argumentation frameworks. This paper is based on the following research question: Which semantics corresponds well to what humans consider a rational judgment on the acceptability of arguments? There are two systematic ways to approach this research question: A normative perspective is provided by the principle-based approach, in which semantics are evaluated based on their satisfaction of various normatively desirable principles. A descriptive perspective is provided by the empirical approach, in which cognitive studies are conducted to determine which semantics best predicts human judgments about arguments. In this paper, we combine both approaches to motivate a new argumentation semantics called SCF2. For this purpose, we introduce and motivate two new principles and show that no semantics from the literature satisfies both of them. We define SCF2 and prove that it satisfies both new principles. Furthermore, we discuss findings of a recent empirical cognitive study that provide additional support to SCF2.
△ Less
Submitted 22 August, 2019;
originally announced August 2019.
-
Designing Normative Theories for Ethical and Legal Reasoning: LogiKEy Framework, Methodology, and Tool Support
Authors:
Christoph Benzmüller,
Xavier Parent,
Leendert van der Torre
Abstract:
A framework and methodology---termed LogiKEy---for the design and engineering of ethical reasoners, normative theories and deontic logics is presented. The overall motivation is the development of suitable means for the control and governance of intelligent autonomous systems. LogiKEy's unifying formal framework is based on semantical embeddings of deontic logics, logic combinations and ethico-leg…
▽ More
A framework and methodology---termed LogiKEy---for the design and engineering of ethical reasoners, normative theories and deontic logics is presented. The overall motivation is the development of suitable means for the control and governance of intelligent autonomous systems. LogiKEy's unifying formal framework is based on semantical embeddings of deontic logics, logic combinations and ethico-legal domain theories in expressive classic higher-order logic (HOL). This meta-logical approach enables the provision of powerful tool support in LogiKEy: off-the-shelf theorem provers and model finders for HOL are assisting the LogiKEy designer of ethical intelligent agents to flexibly experiment with underlying logics and their combinations, with ethico-legal domain theories, and with concrete examples---all at the same time. Continuous improvements of these off-the-shelf provers, without further ado, leverage the reasoning performance in LogiKEy. Case studies, in which the LogiKEy framework and methodology has been applied and tested, give evidence that HOL's undecidability often does not hinder efficient experimentation.
△ Less
Submitted 24 May, 2020; v1 submitted 25 March, 2019;
originally announced March 2019.
-
The Jiminy Advisor: Moral Agreements Among Stakeholders Based on Norms and Argumentation
Authors:
Beishui Liao,
Pere Pardo,
Marija Slavkovik,
Leendert van der Torre
Abstract:
An autonomous system is constructed by a manufacturer, operates in a society subject to norms and laws, and interacts with end users. All of these actors are stakeholders affected by the behavior of the autonomous system. We address the challenge of how the ethical views of such stakeholders can be integrated in the behavior of an autonomous system. We propose an ethical recommendation component c…
▽ More
An autonomous system is constructed by a manufacturer, operates in a society subject to norms and laws, and interacts with end users. All of these actors are stakeholders affected by the behavior of the autonomous system. We address the challenge of how the ethical views of such stakeholders can be integrated in the behavior of an autonomous system. We propose an ethical recommendation component called Jiminy which uses techniques from normative systems and formal argumentation to reach moral agreements among stakeholders. A Jiminy represents the ethical views of each stakeholder by using normative systems, and has three ways of resolving moral dilemmas that involve the opinions of the stakeholders. First, the Jiminy considers how the arguments of the stakeholders relate to one another, which may already resolve the dilemma. Secondly, the Jiminy combines the normative systems of the stakeholders such that the combined expertise of the stakeholders may resolve the dilemma. Thirdly, and only if these two other methods have failed, the Jiminy uses context-sensitive rules to decide which of the stakeholders take preference over the others. At the abstract level, these three methods are characterized by adding arguments, adding attacks between arguments, and revising attacks between arguments. We show how a Jiminy can be used not only for ethical reasoning and collaborative decision-making, but also to provide explanations about ethical behavior.
△ Less
Submitted 28 April, 2023; v1 submitted 11 December, 2018;
originally announced December 2018.
-
Prioritized Norms in Formal Argumentation
Authors:
Beishui Liao,
Nir Oren,
Leendert van der Torre,
Serena Villata
Abstract:
To resolve conflicts among norms, various nonmonotonic formalisms can be used to perform prioritized normative reasoning. Meanwhile, formal argumentation provides a way to represent nonmonotonic logics. In this paper, we propose a representation of prioritized normative reasoning by argumentation. Using hierarchical abstract normative systems, we define three kinds of prioritized normative reasoni…
▽ More
To resolve conflicts among norms, various nonmonotonic formalisms can be used to perform prioritized normative reasoning. Meanwhile, formal argumentation provides a way to represent nonmonotonic logics. In this paper, we propose a representation of prioritized normative reasoning by argumentation. Using hierarchical abstract normative systems, we define three kinds of prioritized normative reasoning approaches, called Greedy, Reduction, and Optimization. Then, after formulating an argumentation theory for a hierarchical abstract normative system, we show that for a totally ordered hierarchical abstract normative system, Greedy and Reduction can be represented in argumentation by applying the weakest link and the last link principles respectively, and Optimization can be represented by introducing additional defeats capturing the idea that for each argument that contains a norm not belonging to the maximal obeyable set then this argument should be rejected.
△ Less
Submitted 28 February, 2018; v1 submitted 23 September, 2017;
originally announced September 2017.
-
Defense semantics of argumentation: encoding reasons for accepting arguments
Authors:
Beishui Liao,
Leendert van der Torre
Abstract:
In this paper we show how the defense relation among abstract arguments can be used to encode the reasons for accepting arguments. After introducing a novel notion of defenses and defense graphs, we propose a defense semantics together with a new notion of defense equivalence of argument graphs, and compare defense equivalence with standard equivalence and strong equivalence, respectively. Then, b…
▽ More
In this paper we show how the defense relation among abstract arguments can be used to encode the reasons for accepting arguments. After introducing a novel notion of defenses and defense graphs, we propose a defense semantics together with a new notion of defense equivalence of argument graphs, and compare defense equivalence with standard equivalence and strong equivalence, respectively. Then, based on defense semantics, we define two kinds of reasons for accepting arguments, i.e., direct reasons and root reasons, and a notion of root equivalence of argument graphs. Finally, we show how the notion of root equivalence can be used in argumentation summarization.
△ Less
Submitted 2 August, 2017; v1 submitted 30 April, 2017;
originally announced May 2017.
-
Reasoning in Non-Probabilistic Uncertainty: Logic Programming and Neural-Symbolic Computing as Examples
Authors:
Tarek R. Besold,
Artur d'Avila Garcez,
Keith Stenning,
Leendert van der Torre,
Michiel van Lambalgen
Abstract:
This article aims to achieve two goals: to show that probability is not the only way of dealing with uncertainty (and even more, that there are kinds of uncertainty which are for principled reasons not addressable with probabilistic means); and to provide evidence that logic-based methods can well support reasoning with uncertainty. For the latter claim, two paradigmatic examples are presented: Lo…
▽ More
This article aims to achieve two goals: to show that probability is not the only way of dealing with uncertainty (and even more, that there are kinds of uncertainty which are for principled reasons not addressable with probabilistic means); and to provide evidence that logic-based methods can well support reasoning with uncertainty. For the latter claim, two paradigmatic examples are presented: Logic Programming with Kleene semantics for modelling reasoning from information in a discourse, to an interpretation of the state of affairs of the intended model, and a neural-symbolic implementation of Input/Output logic for dealing with uncertainty in dynamic normative contexts.
△ Less
Submitted 1 March, 2017; v1 submitted 18 January, 2017;
originally announced January 2017.
-
A partial taxonomy of judgment aggregation rules, and their properties
Authors:
Jerôme Lang,
Gabriella Pigozzi,
Marija Slavkovik,
Leendert van der Torre,
Srdjan Vesic
Abstract:
The literature on judgment aggregation is moving from studying impossibility results regarding aggregation rules towards studying specific judgment aggregation rules. Here we give a structured list of most rules that have been proposed and studied recently in the literature, together with various properties of such rules. We first focus on the majority-preservation property, which generalizes Cond…
▽ More
The literature on judgment aggregation is moving from studying impossibility results regarding aggregation rules towards studying specific judgment aggregation rules. Here we give a structured list of most rules that have been proposed and studied recently in the literature, together with various properties of such rules. We first focus on the majority-preservation property, which generalizes Condorcet-consistency, and identify which of the rules satisfy it. We study the inclusion relationships that hold between the rules. Finally, we consider two forms of unanimity, monotonicity, homogeneity, and reinforcement, and we identify which of the rules satisfy these properties.
△ Less
Submitted 27 September, 2016; v1 submitted 20 February, 2015;
originally announced February 2015.
-
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.
-
An Update Semantics for Defeasible Obligations
Authors:
Leendert van der Torre,
Yao-Hua Tan
Abstract:
The deontic logic DUS is a Deontic Update Semantics for prescriptive obligations based on the update semantics of Veltman. In DUS the definition of logical validity of obligations is not based on static truth values but on dynamic action transitions. In this paper prescriptive defeasible obligations are formalized in update semantics and the diagnostic problem of defeasible deontic logic is discus…
▽ More
The deontic logic DUS is a Deontic Update Semantics for prescriptive obligations based on the update semantics of Veltman. In DUS the definition of logical validity of obligations is not based on static truth values but on dynamic action transitions. In this paper prescriptive defeasible obligations are formalized in update semantics and the diagnostic problem of defeasible deontic logic is discussed. Assume a defeasible obligation `normally A ought to be (done)' together withthe fact `A is not (done).' Is this an exception of the normality claim, or is it a violation of the obligation? In this paper we formalize the heuristic principle that it is a violation, unless there is a more specific overriding obligation. The underlying motivation from legal reasoning is that criminals should have as little opportunities as possible to excuse themselves by claiming that their behavior was exceptional rather than criminal.
△ Less
Submitted 23 January, 2013;
originally announced January 2013.
-
What is a Joint Goal? Games with Beliefs and Defeasible Desires
Authors:
Mehdi Dastani,
Leendert van der Torre
Abstract:
In this paper we introduce a qualitative decision and game theory based on belief (B) and desire (D) rules. We show that a group of agents acts as if it is maximizing achieved joint goals.
In this paper we introduce a qualitative decision and game theory based on belief (B) and desire (D) rules. We show that a group of agents acts as if it is maximizing achieved joint goals.
△ Less
Submitted 7 July, 2002;
originally announced July 2002.
