References of "Gabbay, Dov M. 30000217"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailReactive Preferential Structures and Nonmonotonic consequence
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Schlechta, Karl

in Review of Symbolic Logic (The) (2009), 2(2), 414450

We introduce Information Bearing Relation Systems (IBRS) a s an abstraction of many logical systems. We then define a general semantics for IBRS, and show that a special case of IBRS generalizes in a very ... [more ▼]

We introduce Information Bearing Relation Systems (IBRS) a s an abstraction of many logical systems. We then define a general semantics for IBRS, and show that a special case of IBRS generalizes in a very natural way preferential semantics and solves open representation problems for weak logical systems. This is possible, as we can ”break” the strong coher ence properties of preferential structures by higher arrows, i.e. arrows, which do not go to points, but t o arrows themselves [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 22 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailSemantics for Higher Level Attacks in Extended Argumentation Frames Part 1: Overview
Gabbay, Dov M. UL

in Studia Logica (2009), 93(2-3), 357381

In 2005 the author introduced networks which allow attacks on attacks of any level. So if a→b reads a attacks b, then this attack can itself be attacked by another node c. This attack itself can attack ... [more ▼]

In 2005 the author introduced networks which allow attacks on attacks of any level. So if a→b reads a attacks b, then this attack can itself be attacked by another node c. This attack itself can attack another node d. This situation can be iterated to any level with attacks and nodes attacking other attacks and other nodes. In this paper we provide semantics (of extensions) to such networks. We offer three different approaches to obtaining semantics. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 32 (3 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailMeta-Argumentation part 1
Boella, Guido UL; Gabbay, Dov M. UL; van der Torre, Leon UL et al

in Studia Logica (2009)

In this paper, we introduce the methodology and techniques of meta-argumentation to model argumentation. The methodology of meta-argumentation instantiates Dung’s abstract argumentation theory with an ... [more ▼]

In this paper, we introduce the methodology and techniques of meta-argumentation to model argumentation. The methodology of meta-argumentation instantiates Dung’s abstract argumentation theory with an extended argumentation theory, and is thus based on a combination of the methodology of instantiating abstract arguments, and the methodology of extending Dung’s basic argumentation frameworks with other relations among abstract arguments. The technique of meta-argumentation applies Dung’s theory of abstract argumentation to itself, by instantiating Dung’s abstract arguments with meta-arguments using a technique called flattening. We characterize the domain of instantiation using a representation technique based on soundness and completeness. Finally, we distinguish among various instantiations using the technique of specification languages. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 20 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailFibring Argumentation Frames
Gabbay, Dov M. UL

in Studia Logica (2009)

This paper is part of a research program centered around argumentation networks and offering several research directions for argumentation networks, with a view of using such networks for integrating ... [more ▼]

This paper is part of a research program centered around argumentation networks and offering several research directions for argumentation networks, with a view of using such networks for integrating logics and network reasoning. In Section 1 we introduce our program manifesto. In Section 2 we motivate and show how to substitute one argumentation network as a node in another argumentation network. Substitution is a purely logical operation and doing it for networks, besides developing their theory further, also helps us see how to bring logic and networks closer together. Section 3 develops the formal properties of the new kind of network and Section 4 offers general discussion and comparison with the literature. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 17 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailReactive Kripke Models and Contrary to Duty Obligations
Gabbay, Dov M. UL

in Deontic Logic in Computer Science, 9th International Conference, DEON 2008, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, July 15-18, 2008. Proceedings (2008)

This is an intuitive description of our approach to modelling contrary to duty obliga- tions. We shall describe our ideas through the analysis of typical problematic examples taken from Carmo and Jones [6 ... [more ▼]

This is an intuitive description of our approach to modelling contrary to duty obliga- tions. We shall describe our ideas through the analysis of typical problematic examples taken from Carmo and Jones [6], L. van der Torre [14] and Prakken and Sergot [5] [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 16 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailA Sound and Complete Deductive System for CTL Verification
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Pnueli, A.

in Journal of Logic & Computation (2008), 16(6), 499536

Detailed reference viewed: 23 (0 UL)
See detailQuantum Logic
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Engesser, Kurt; Lehmann, D.

Book published by College publications (2008)

Detailed reference viewed: 3 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailBelief Revision in Non-classical Logic II
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Russo, Alessandra; Rodrigues, Odinaldo

in Review of Symbolic Logic (The) (2008), 1(03), 267304

Detailed reference viewed: 17 (1 UL)
See detailAnalysis and synthesis of logics
Carnielli, Walter; Coniglio, Marcelo; Gabbay, Dov M. UL et al

Book published by Springer (2008)

Detailed reference viewed: 15 (0 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailBelief Revision
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Russo, Alessandra; Rodrigues, Odinaldo

in Handbook of Philosophical Logic (2008)

Detailed reference viewed: 10 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailCut-Based Abduction
D'Agostino, G.-C.; Gabbay, Dov M. UL

in Journal of Logic & Computation (2008), 16(6), 537560

In this paper we explore a generalization of traditional abduction which can simultaneously perform two different tasks: (i) given an unprovable sequent G, find a sentence H such that, H G is provable ... [more ▼]

In this paper we explore a generalization of traditional abduction which can simultaneously perform two different tasks: (i) given an unprovable sequent G, find a sentence H such that, H G is provable (hypothesis generation); (ii) given a provable sequent G, find a sentence H such that H and the proof of , H G is simpler than the proof of G (lemma generation). We argue that the two tasks should not be distinguished,and present a general procedure for indingsuitable hypotheses or lemmas. When the original sequent is provable, the abduced formula can be seen asa cut formula with respect to Gentzen's sequent calculus, so the abduction method is cut-based. Our method is based on the tableau-like system KE and we argue for its advantages over existing abduction methods based on traditional Smullyan-styleTableaux. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 14 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailIntroducing Reactive Kripke Semantics and Arc Accessibility
Gabbay, Dov M. UL

in Pillars of Computer Science, Essays Dedicated to Boris (Boaz) Trakhtenbrot on the Occasion of His 85th Birthday (2008)

Ordinary Kripke models are not reactive. When we evaluate (test/ measure) a formula A at a model m, the model does not react, respond or change while we evaluate. The model is static and unchanged. This ... [more ▼]

Ordinary Kripke models are not reactive. When we evaluate (test/ measure) a formula A at a model m, the model does not react, respond or change while we evaluate. The model is static and unchanged. This paper studies Kripke models which react to the evaluation process and change themselves during the process. The additional device we add to Kripke semantics to make it reactive is to allow the accessibility relation to access itself. Thus the accessibility relation R of a reactive Kripke model contains not only pairs (a,b)∈R of possible worlds (b is accessible to a, i.e., there is an accessibility arc from a to b) but also pairs of the form (t,(a,b))∈R, meaning that the arc (a,b) is accessible to t, or even connections of the form ((a,b), (c,d))∈R. This new kind of Kripke semantics allows us to characterise more axiomatic odal logics (with one modality []) by a class of reactive frames. There are logics which cannot be characterised by ordinary frames but which can be characterised by reactive frames. We also discuss the manifestation of the ‘reactive’ idea in the context of automata theory, where we allow the automaton to react and change it’s own definition as it responds to input, and in graph theory, where the graph can change under us as we manipulate it. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 18 (0 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailA Normative View on The Blocks World
Grossi, Davide UL; Gabbay, Dov M. UL; van der Torre, Leon UL

in Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Normative Multiagent Systems (NorMAS'08) (2008)

Detailed reference viewed: 29 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailResource-origins of Nonmonotonicity
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Woods, John

in Studia Logica (2008), 88(1), 85112

Formal nonmonotonic systems try to model the phenomenon that common sense reasoners are able to “jump” in their reasoning from assumptions ∆ to conclusions C without their being any deductive chain from ∆ ... [more ▼]

Formal nonmonotonic systems try to model the phenomenon that common sense reasoners are able to “jump” in their reasoning from assumptions ∆ to conclusions C without their being any deductive chain from ∆ to C. Such jumps are done by various mechanisms which are strongly dependent on context and knowledge of how the actual world functions. Our aim is to motivate these jump rules as inference rules designed to optimise survival in an environment with scant resources of effort and time. We begin with a general discussion and quickly move to Section 3 where we introduce five resource principles. We show that these principles lead to some well known nonmonotonic systems such as Nute’s defeasible logic. We also give several examples of practical reasoning situations to illustrate our principles. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 19 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailCumulativity without closure of the domain under finite unions
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Schlechta, K.

in Review of Symbolic Logic (The) (2008), 1(03), 267304

For nonmonotonic logics, Cumulativity is an important logical rule. We show here that Cumulativity fans out into an infinity of different conditions, if the domain is not closed under finite unions.

Detailed reference viewed: 16 (0 UL)
See detailSecond-order Quantifier Elimination Foundations, Computational Aspects and Applications (Studies in Logic Mathematical Logic and Foundations)
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Schmidt, R.; Szalas, A.

Book published by College publications (2008)

Detailed reference viewed: 55 (0 UL)
See detailA New Approach to Quantum Logic
Engesser, Kurt; Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Lehmann, Daniel

Book published by College publications (2007)

Detailed reference viewed: 28 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailCommon Foundations for Belief Revision, Belief Merging and Voting
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Pigozzi, Gabriella UL; Rodrigues, Odinaldo

in Formal Models of Belief Change in Rational Agents (2007)

In this paper, we consider a number of different ways of reasoning about voting as a problem of conciliating contradictory interests. The mechanisms that do the reconciliation are belief revision and be ... [more ▼]

In this paper, we consider a number of different ways of reasoning about voting as a problem of conciliating contradictory interests. The mechanisms that do the reconciliation are belief revision and be- lief merging. By investigating the relationship between different voting strategies and their associated counterparts in revision theory, we find that whereas the counting mechanism of the voting process is more easily done at the meta-level in belief merging, it can be brought to the object level in base revision. In the former case, the counting can b e tweaked according to the aggregation procedure used, whereas in base revision, we can only rely on the notion of minimal change and hence the syntactical representation of the voters’ preferences plays a crucial part in the process. This highlights the similarities between the revi sion approaches on the one hand and voting on the other, but also opens up a numb er of interesting questions. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 7 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailBelief revision, belief merging and voting
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Pigozzi, Gabriella UL; Rodrigues, O.

in Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Logic and the Foundations of Games and Decision Theory (LOFT06) (2006)

In belief revision, an agent is faced with the problem of choosing between several alternatives when trying to restore con- sistency to theory. Ideally, the choice process is conducted in a way that ... [more ▼]

In belief revision, an agent is faced with the problem of choosing between several alternatives when trying to restore con- sistency to theory. Ideally, the choice process is conducted in a way that verifies a number of fairness principles. On the other hand, be- lief merging concerns with the problem of determining a group’s be- liefs from individual members’ beliefs that are not always compatible with each other. Similarly, in voting systems, a social welfare func- tion takes individual preferences into account in order to produce a collective preference. Here again certain fairness principles are desir- able. In this paper, we investigate the relationship between revision, merging and voting. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 7 (0 UL)