References of "Gabbay, Dov M. 30000217"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailObligations and Prohibitions in Talmudic Deontic Logic
Abraham, Michael; Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Schild, Uri J.

in DEON (2010)

This paper examines the deontic logic of the Talmud. We shall find, by looking at examples, that at first approximation we need deontic logic with several connectives: OTA Talmudic obligation FTA Talmudic ... [more ▼]

This paper examines the deontic logic of the Talmud. We shall find, by looking at examples, that at first approximation we need deontic logic with several connectives: OTA Talmudic obligation FTA Talmudic prohibition FDA Standard deontic prohibition ODA Standard deontic obligation [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 102 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailModal Access Control Logic - Axiomatization, Semantics and FOl Theorem Proving
Genovese, Valerio UL; Rispoli, Daniele; Gabbay, Dov M. UL et al

in STAIRS 2010 (2010)

We present and study a Modal Access Control Logic (M-ACL) to specify and reason about access control policies. We identify canonical properties of well-known access control axioms. We provide a Hilbert ... [more ▼]

We present and study a Modal Access Control Logic (M-ACL) to specify and reason about access control policies. We identify canonical properties of well-known access control axioms. We provide a Hilbert-style proof-system and we prove soundness, completeness and decidability of the logic. We present a sound and complete embedding of Modal Access Control Logic into First-Order Logic. We show how to use SPASS theorem prover to reason about access control policies expressed as formulas of Modal Access Control Logic, and we compare our logic with existing ones. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 47 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailSupport in Abstract Argumentation
Boella, Guido UL; Gabbay, Dov M. UL; van der Torre, Leon UL et al

in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA'10) (2010)

n this paper, we consider two drawbacks of Cayrol and Lagasque-Schiex's meta-argumentation theory to model bipolar argumentation frameworks. We consider first the “lost of admissibility” in Dung's sense ... [more ▼]

n this paper, we consider two drawbacks of Cayrol and Lagasque-Schiex's meta-argumentation theory to model bipolar argumentation frameworks. We consider first the “lost of admissibility” in Dung's sense and second, the definition of notions of attack in the context of a support relation. We show how to prevent these drawbacks by introducing support meta-arguments. Like the model of Cayrol and Lagasque-Schiex, our formalization confirms the use of meta-argumentation to reuse Dung's properties. We do not take a stance towards the usefulness of a support relation among arguments, though we show that if one would like to introduce them, it can be done without extending Dung's theory. Finally, we show how to use meta-argumentation to instantiate an argumentation framework to represent defeasible support. In this model of support, the support relation itself can be attacked. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 161 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailHigher-Order Coalition Logic
Boella, Guido UL; Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Genovese, Valerio UL et al

in Bibliothèque(s) : revue de l'Association des bibliothécaires de France (2010)

We introduce and study higher-order coalition logic, a multi modal monadic second-order logic with operators [{x}ψ]φ expressing that the coalition of all agents satisfying ψ(x) can achieve a state in ... [more ▼]

We introduce and study higher-order coalition logic, a multi modal monadic second-order logic with operators [{x}ψ]φ expressing that the coalition of all agents satisfying ψ(x) can achieve a state in which φ holds. We use neighborhood semantics to model extensive games of perfect information with simultaneous actions and we provide a framework reasoning about agents in the same way as it is reasoning about their abilities. We illustrate higher-order coalition logic to represent and reason about coalition formation and cooperation, we show a more general and expressive way to quantify over coalitions than quantified coalition logic, we give an axiomatization and prove completeness. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 48 (0 UL)
See detailNon-Deductive Inference in the Talmud
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Abraham, Michael; Schild, U.

Book published by College Publications (2010)

Detailed reference viewed: 36 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailA Theory of Hierarchical Consequence and Conditionals
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Schlechta, Karl

in Journal of Logic, Language and Information (2010), 19(1), 332

We introduce A-ranked preferential structures and combine them with an accessibility relation. A-ranked preferential structures are intermediate between sim- ple preferential structures and ranked ... [more ▼]

We introduce A-ranked preferential structures and combine them with an accessibility relation. A-ranked preferential structures are intermediate between sim- ple preferential structures and ranked structures. The additional accessibility relation allows us to consider only parts of the overall A-ranked structure. This framework allows us to formalize contrary to duty obligations, and other pictures where we have a hierarchy of situations, and maybe not all are accessible to all possible worlds. Representation results are proved. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 92 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailArguing about Trust in Multiagent Systems
Villata, Serena; Boella, Guido UL; Gabbay, Dov M. UL et al

in Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on Artificial Intelligence of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence (AIIA'10) (2010)

Trust in multiagent systems is used for seeking to minimize the uncertainty in the interactions among the agents. In this paper, we discuss how to use argumentation to reason about trust. Using the ... [more ▼]

Trust in multiagent systems is used for seeking to minimize the uncertainty in the interactions among the agents. In this paper, we discuss how to use argumentation to reason about trust. Using the methodology of meta-argumentation, first we represent the source of the information from which the argument is constructed in the abstract argumentation framework capturing the fact that b is attacked because b is from a particular source s. We show how a source of information can be attacked if it is not evaluated as trustworthy. Second, we provide a fine grained representation of the trust relationships between the information sources in which trust concerns not only the sources but also the single arguments and attack relations the sources propose. Moreover, we represent the evidences in support of the arguments which are put forward by the information sources and the agents can express arguments by referring to other agents’ arguments. Meta-argumentation allows us not to extend Dung’s abstract argumentation framework by introducing trust and to reuse those principles and properties defined for Dung’s framework. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 35 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailLogical Modes of Attack in Argumentation Networks
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Garcez, A. S. D. Avila

in Studia Logica (2009)

This paper studies methodologically robust options for giving logical contents to nodes in abstract argumentation networks. It defines a variety of notions of attack in terms of the logical contents of ... [more ▼]

This paper studies methodologically robust options for giving logical contents to nodes in abstract argumentation networks. It defines a variety of notions of attack in terms of the logical contents of the nodes in a network. General properties of logics are refined both in the object level and in the meta level to suit the needs of the application. The network-based system improves upon some of the attempts in the literature to define attacks in terms of defeasible proofs, the so-called rule- based systems. We also provide a number of examples and consider a rigorous case study, which indicate that our system does not suffer from anomalies. We define consequence relations based on a notion of defeat, consider rationality postulates, and prove that one such consequence relation is consistent. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 76 (0 UL)
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: 91 (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: 92 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailVoting by Eliminating Quantifiers
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Szalas, Andrzej

in Studia Logica (2009), 92(3), 365379

Mathematical theory of voting and social choice has attracted much at- tention. In the general setting one can view social choice as a method of aggregating individual, often conflicting preferences and ... [more ▼]

Mathematical theory of voting and social choice has attracted much at- tention. In the general setting one can view social choice as a method of aggregating individual, often conflicting preferences and making a choice that is the best compromise. How preferences are expressed and what is the “best compromise” varies and heavily depends on a particular situation. The method we propose in this paper depends on expressing individual preferences of voters and specifying properties of the resulting ranking by means of first-order formulas. Then, as a technical tool, we use methods of second-order quantifier elimination to analyze and compute results of voting. We show how to specify voting, how to compute resulting rankings and how to verify voting protocols. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 99 (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: 40 (3 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailA Theory of Hierarchical Conditionals
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Schlechta, Karl

in Journal of Logic, Language and Information (2009)

Detailed reference viewed: 21 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailModal Foundations for Argumentation Networks
Gabbay, Dov M. UL

in Studia Logica (2009)

Detailed reference viewed: 24 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailSize and Logic
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Schlechta, Karl

in Review of Symbolic Logic (The) (2009), 2(2), 396404

Detailed reference viewed: 19 (0 UL)
See detailLogical Tools for Handling Change in Agent-based Systems
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Schlechta, Karl

Book published by Springer (2009)

Detailed reference viewed: 63 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailVoting with Second Order Quantifier Elimination
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Szalas, A.

in Studia Logica (2009), 92(3), 365379

Detailed reference viewed: 17 (0 UL)
See detailQuantification in Non-classical Logics
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Shehtman, V.; Skvortsov, D.

Book published by Elsevier (2009)

Detailed reference viewed: 22 (0 UL)
See detailRevision, Acceptability and Context
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Rodrigues, O.; Russo, A.

Book published by Springer (2009)

Detailed reference viewed: 66 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailReactive Preferencial Structures and Nonmonotonic consequence
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Schlechta, K.

in Review of Symbolic Logic (2009)

Detailed reference viewed: 21 (0 UL)