References of "Gabbay, Dov M. 30000217"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailCase-Based Reasoning via Comparing the Strength Order of Features
Yu, Liuwen UL; Gabbay, Dov M. UL

in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (2022), 13283 LNAI

Case-based reasoning (CBR) is broadly speaking a method of giving a verdict/decision on a new case query by comparing it with verdicts/decisions of known similar cases. Similarity of cases is determined ... [more ▼]

Case-based reasoning (CBR) is broadly speaking a method of giving a verdict/decision on a new case query by comparing it with verdicts/decisions of known similar cases. Similarity of cases is determined either by best distance of the query case from the known cases and recently also using argumentation. The approach of this paper is not to rely on similarity or argumentation, but to use the entire set of known cases and their known verdicts to define the relative strength and importance of all the features involved in these cases. We then decide the verdict for the new case based on the strength of the features appearing in it. [less ▲]

Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailEnsuring reference independence and cautious monotony in abstract argumentation
Kampik, Timotheus; Nieves, Juan Carlos; Gabbay, Dov M. UL

in International Journal of Approximate Reasoning (2022), 140

In the symbolic artificial intelligence community, abstract argumentation with its semantics, i.e. approaches for defining sets of valid conclusions (extensions) that can be derived from argumentation ... [more ▼]

In the symbolic artificial intelligence community, abstract argumentation with its semantics, i.e. approaches for defining sets of valid conclusions (extensions) that can be derived from argumentation graphs, is considered a promising method for non-monotonic reasoning. However, from a sequential perspective, abstract argumentation-based decision-making processes typically do not guarantee an alignment with common formal notions to assess consistency; in particular, abstract argumentation can, in itself, not enforce the satisfaction of relational principles such as reference independence (based on a key principle of microeconomic theory) and cautious monotony. In this paper, we address this issue by introducing different approaches to ensuring reference independence and cautious monotony in sequential argumentation: a reductionist, an expansionist, and an extension-selecting approach. The first two approaches are generically applicable, but may require comprehensive changes to the corresponding argumentation framework. In contrast, the latter approach guarantees that an extension of the corresponding argumentation framework can be selected to satisfy the relational principle by requiring that the used argumentation semantics is weakly reference independent or weakly cautiously monotonous, respectively, and also satisfies some additional straightforward principles. To highlight the relevance of the approach, we illustrate how the extension-selecting approach to reference independent argumentation can be applied to model (boundedly) rational economic decision-making. [less ▲]

Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailDynamic Deontic Logic for Permitted Announcements
Li, Xu UL; Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Markovich, Réka UL

in 19th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 2022 (2022)

In this paper, we introduce and study a dynamic deontic logic for permitted announcements. In our logic framework, it is permitted to announce something if announcing it would not lead to forbidden ... [more ▼]

In this paper, we introduce and study a dynamic deontic logic for permitted announcements. In our logic framework, it is permitted to announce something if announcing it would not lead to forbidden knowledge. It is shown that the logic is not compact, and we propose a sound and weakly complete Hilbert-style axiomatisation. We also study the computational complexity of the model checking problem and the decidability of the satisfiability problem. Finally, we introduce a neighbourhood semantics with a strongly complete axiomatisation. [less ▲]

Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailThe Law of Evidence and Labelled Deduction: Ten Years Later
Woods, John G.; Gabbay, Dov M. UL

in Journal of Applied Logic (2022), 9(4), 887-956

The purpose of this position paper is to reveal, through examples, the potential for collaboration between the theory of legal reasoning on the one hand, and some recently developed instruments of formal ... [more ▼]

The purpose of this position paper is to reveal, through examples, the potential for collaboration between the theory of legal reasoning on the one hand, and some recently developed instruments of formal logic. Three zones of contact are highlighted. 1. The law of evidence, in the light of labelled deductive systems (LDSs), discussed through the example of the admissibility of hearsay evidence. 2. The give and take of legal debate in general, and regarding the acceptability of evidence in particular, represented using the abstract systems of argumentation developed in logic, notably the coloured graphs of BenchCapon. This is considered through an imaginary example. 3. The use of Bayesian networks as tools for analysing the effects of uncertainty on the legal status of actions, illustrated via the same example These three kinds of technique do not exclude each other. On the contrary, many cases of legal argument will need the combined resources of all three. [less ▲]

Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailValue-based practical reasoning: Modal Logic + Argumentation
Luo, Jieting; Liao, Beishui; Gabbay, Dov M. UL

in Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications (2022), 353

Autonomous agents are supposed to be able to finish tasks or achieve goals that are assigned by their users through performing a sequence of actions. Since there might exist multiple plans that an agent ... [more ▼]

Autonomous agents are supposed to be able to finish tasks or achieve goals that are assigned by their users through performing a sequence of actions. Since there might exist multiple plans that an agent can follow and each plan might promote or demote different values along each action, the agent should be able to resolve the conflicts between them and evaluate which plan he should follow. In this paper, we develop a logic-based framework that combines modal logic and argumentation for value-based practical reasoning with plans. Modal logic is used as a technique to represent and verify whether a plan with its local properties of value promotion or demotion can be followed to achieve an agent's goal. We then propose an argumentation-based approach that allows an agent to reason about his plans in the form of supporting or objecting to a plan using the verification results. [less ▲]

See detailBTPK-based learning: An Interpretable Method for Named Entity Recognition
Chen, Yulin; Yao, Zelai; Chi, Haixiao et al

E-print/Working paper (2022)

Named entity recognition (NER) is an essential task in natural language processing, but the internal mechanism of most NER models is a black box for users. In some high-stake decision-making areas ... [more ▼]

Named entity recognition (NER) is an essential task in natural language processing, but the internal mechanism of most NER models is a black box for users. In some high-stake decision-making areas, improving the interpretability of an NER method is crucial but challenging. In this paper, based on the existing Deterministic Talmudic Public announcement logic (TPK) model, we propose a novel binary tree model (called BTPK) and apply it to two widely used Bi-RNNs to obtain BTPK-based interpretable ones. Then, we design a counterfactual verification module to verify the BTPK-based learning method. Experimental results on three public datasets show that the BTPK-based learning outperform two classical Bi-RNNs with self-attention, especially on small, simple data and relatively large, complex data. Moreover, the counterfactual verification demonstrates that the explanations provided by the BTPK-based learning method are reasonable and accurate in NER tasks. Besides, the logical reasoning based on BTPK shows how Bi-RNNs handle NER tasks, with different distance of public announcements on long and complex sequences. [less ▲]

Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailPreface - Journal of Applied Logics
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Giacomin, Massimiliano; Simari, Guillermo Ricardo et al

in IfCoLog Journal of Logics and Their Applications (2021), 8(6), 1335-1338

Detailed reference viewed: 27 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailThe Burden of Persuasion in Abstract Argumentation
Kampik, Timotheus; Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Sartor, Giovanni

in Baroni, Pietro; Benzmüller, Christoph; Wang, Yiqun (Eds.) Logic and Argumentation - 4th International Conference, CLAR 2021 Hangzhou, China, October 20-22, 2021, Proceedings (2021)

In this paper, we provide a formal framework for modeling the burden of persuasion in legal reasoning. The framework is based on abstract argumentation, a frequently studied method of non-monotonic ... [more ▼]

In this paper, we provide a formal framework for modeling the burden of persuasion in legal reasoning. The framework is based on abstract argumentation, a frequently studied method of non-monotonic reasoning, and can be applied to different argumentation semantics; it supports burdens of persuasion with arbitrary many levels, and allows for the placement of a burden of persuasion on any subset of an argumentation framework’s arguments. Our framework can be considered an extension of related works that raise questions on how burdens of persuasion should be handled in some conflict scenarios that can be modeled with abstract argumentation. An open source software implementation of the introduced formal notions is available as an extension of an argumentation reasoning library. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 34 (2 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailA Brief Introduction to the Shkop Approach to Conflict Resolution in Formal Argumentation
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Kampik, Timotheus

in Liao, Beishui; Jieting, Luo; van der Torre, Leon (Eds.) Logics for New-Generation AI 2021 (2021)

In this paper, we formalise the Shkop approach to conflict resolution in formal argumentation, in which we start with an empty abstract argumentation framework AF and an initially empty set of inferred ... [more ▼]

In this paper, we formalise the Shkop approach to conflict resolution in formal argumentation, in which we start with an empty abstract argumentation framework AF and an initially empty set of inferred arguments. Then, we expand AF one argument at a time, and evaluate after each expansion if i) arguments that have previously been inferred can be kept (or have to be discarded due to sufficient doubt) and ii) if the newly added argument can be added to the set of inferred arguments. Based on this idea, we introduce a novel approach for designing abstract argumentation semantics. As a particular semantics, we define grounded Shkop semantics – a naive set-based argumentation semantics that does not inhibit a well-known problem of CF2 semantics. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 21 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailWhat is Negation in a System 2020?
Gabbay, Dov M. UL

in IfCoLog Journal of Logics and Their Applications (2021), 8(7), 1977--2034

The notion of negation is basic to any formal or informal logical system. When any such system is presented to us, it is presented either as a system without negation or as a system with some form of ... [more ▼]

The notion of negation is basic to any formal or informal logical system. When any such system is presented to us, it is presented either as a system without negation or as a system with some form of negation. In both cases we are supposed to know intuitively whether there is no negation in the system or whether the form of negation presented in the system is indeed as claimed. To be more specific, suppose Robinson Crusoe writes a logical system with Hilbert type axioms and rules, which includes a unary connective *A. He puts the document in a bottle and let it lose at sea. We find it and take a look. We ask: is the connective "*" a negation in the system? Yet the notion of what is negation in a formal system is not clear. When we see a unary connective *A, (A a wff) together with some other axioms for some additional connectives, how can we tell whether *A is indeed a form of negation of A? Are there some axioms which the connective "*" must satisfy in order to qualify * as a negation? [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 20 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailThe Degrees of Monotony-Dilemma in Abstract Argumentation
Kampik, Timotheus; Gabbay, Dov M. UL

in Vejnarová, Jirina; Wilson, Nic (Eds.) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty - 16th European Conference, ECSQARU 2021, Prague, Czech Republic September 21-24, 2021, Proceedings (2021)

In this paper, we introduce the notion of the degree of monotony to abstract argumentation, a well-established method for drawing inferences in face of conflicts in non-monotonic reasoning. Roughly ... [more ▼]

In this paper, we introduce the notion of the degree of monotony to abstract argumentation, a well-established method for drawing inferences in face of conflicts in non-monotonic reasoning. Roughly speaking, the degree of monotony allows us, given an abstract argumentation semantics and an abstract argumentation framework to be as monotonic as possible, when iteratively drawing inferences and expanding the argumentation framework. However, we also show that when expanding an argumentation framework several times using so-called normal expansions, an agent may, at any given step, select a conclusion that has the highest degree of monotony w.r.t. the previous conclusion (considering the constraints of the semantics), but end up with a conclusion that has a suboptimal degree of monotony w.r.t. one or several conclusions that precede the previous conclusion. We formalize this observation as the degrees of monotony-dilemma. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 27 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailExplainable Reasoning in Face of Contradictions: From Humans to Machines
Kampik, Timotheus; Gabbay, Dov M. UL

in Calvaresi, Davide; Najjar, Amro; Winikoff, Michael (Eds.) et al Explainable and Transparent AI and Multi-Agent Systems - Third International Workshop, EXTRAAMAS 2021, Virtual Event, May 3-7, 2021, Revised Selected Papers (2021)

A well-studied trait of human reasoning and decision-making is the ability to not only make decisions in the presence of contradictions, but also to explain why a decision was made, in particular if a ... [more ▼]

A well-studied trait of human reasoning and decision-making is the ability to not only make decisions in the presence of contradictions, but also to explain why a decision was made, in particular if a decision deviates from what is expected by an inquirer who requests the explanation. In this paper, we examine this phenomenon, which has been extensively explored by behavioral economics research, from the perspective of symbolic artificial intelligence. In particular, we introduce four levels of intelligent reasoning in face of contradictions, which we motivate from a microeconomics and behavioral economics perspective. We relate these principles to symbolic reasoning approaches, using abstract argumentation as an exemplary method. This allows us to ground the four levels in a body of related previous and ongoing research, which we use as a point of departure for outlining future research directions. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 23 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailIntroducing Abstract Argumentation with Many Lives
Gabbay, Dov M. UL

in Journal of Applied Logic (2020), 2631(3), 295

Detailed reference viewed: 59 (8 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailTalmudic Norms Approach to Mixtures with a Solution to the Paradox of the Heap: A Position Paper
David, Esther; David, Rabbi S.; Gabbay, Dov M. UL et al

in Beyond Faith and Rationality (2020)

This paper offers a Talmudic norms solution to the paradox of the heap. The claim is that the paradox arises because philosophers use the wrong language to discuss it. We need a language about objects ... [more ▼]

This paper offers a Talmudic norms solution to the paradox of the heap. The claim is that the paradox arises because philosophers use the wrong language to discuss it. We need a language about objects which is capable of expressing not only the declarative properties of the object (such as being a heap) but also how the object/heap was constructed. Such a view of objects comes from the Talmudic theory of mixtures. To this we add a first attempt at modelling the Talmudic normative theory of mixing (Talmudic calculus of Sorites). We seek a correlation between Talmudic positions on mixtures and philosophical positions on Sorites. The Talmud is very practical and cannot allow for any theoretically unresolved paradox to get in the way, and so it has a lot to offer to philosophy in general and to the heap paradox in particular. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 60 (2 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailForgetting an Argument
Baumann, Ringo; Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Rodrigues, Odinaldo

in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2020)

The notion of forgetting, as considered in the famous paper by Lin and Reiter in 1994 has been extensively studied in classical logic and more recently, in non-monotonic formalisms like logic programming ... [more ▼]

The notion of forgetting, as considered in the famous paper by Lin and Reiter in 1994 has been extensively studied in classical logic and more recently, in non-monotonic formalisms like logic programming. In this paper, we convey the idea of forgetting to another major AI formalism, namely Dung-style argumentation frameworks. Our approach is axiomatic-driven and not limited to any specific semantics: we propose semantical and syntactical desiderata encoding different criteria for what forgetting an argument might mean; analyze how these criteria relate to each other; and check whether the criteria can be satisfied in general. The analysis is done for a number of widely used argumentation semantics. Our investigation shows that almost all desiderata are individually satisfiable. However, combinations of semantical and/or syntactical conditions reveal a much more interesting landscape. For instance, we found that the ad hoc approach to forgetting an argument, i.e., by the syntactical removal of the argument and all of its associated attacks, is too restrictive and only compatible with the two weakest semantical desiderata. Amongst the several interesting combinations identified, we showed that one satisfies a notion of minimal change and presented an algorithm that given an AF F and argument x, constructs a suitable AF G satisfying the conditions in the combination. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 44 (2 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailA bimodal simulation of defeasibility in thenormative domain
Libal, Tomer UL; van der Torre, Leon UL; Gabbay, Dov M. UL et al

in CEUR Workshop Proceedings (2020)

In the present work we illustrate how two sorts of defeasiblereasoning that are fundamental in the normative domain, that is, reasoning about exceptions and reasoning about violations, can be simulated ... [more ▼]

In the present work we illustrate how two sorts of defeasiblereasoning that are fundamental in the normative domain, that is, reasoning about exceptions and reasoning about violations, can be simulated via monotonic propositional theories based on a bimodal language with primitive operators representing knowledge and obligation. The proposed theoretical framework paves the way to using native theorem provers for multimodal logic, such as MleanCoP, in order to automate normative reasoning. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 37 (3 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailAttack-Defence Frameworks: Argumentation-Based Semantics for Attack-Defence Trees.
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Horne, Ross James UL; Mauw, Sjouke UL et al

in Graphical Models for Security - 7th International Workshop (2020)

Detailed reference viewed: 52 (11 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailNormality, non-contamination and logical depth in classical natural deduction
D’Agostino, Marcello; Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Modgil, Sanjay

in Studia Logica (2020), 108(2), 291--357

In this paper we provide a detailed proof-theoretical analysis of a natural deduction system for classical propositional logic that (i) represents classical proofs in a more natural way than standard ... [more ▼]

In this paper we provide a detailed proof-theoretical analysis of a natural deduction system for classical propositional logic that (i) represents classical proofs in a more natural way than standard Gentzen-style natural deduction, (ii) admits of a simple normalization procedure such that normal proofs enjoy the Weak Subformula Property, (iii) provides the means to prove a Non-Contamination Property of normal proofs that is not satisfied by normal proofs in the Gentzen tradition and is useful for applications, especially to formal argumentation, (iv) naturally leads to defining a notion of depth of a proof, to the effect that, for every fixed natural k, normal k-depth deducibility is a tractable problem and converges to classical deducibility as k tends to infinity. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 47 (3 UL)
Full Text
See detailA geometrical view of I/O logic
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Parent, Xavier UL; van der Torre, Leon UL

Report (2019)

Detailed reference viewed: 66 (9 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailMachine Argumentation. Can We Replace Taxi Drivers by Robots?
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Cramer, Marcos; Dauphin, Jérémie UL et al

in Natural Argument, A tribute to John Woods (2019)

We need ethical non-monotonic action logics to control machines which interact heavily with humans. Such logics face special problems and require features which we need to recognise and to address. We ... [more ▼]

We need ethical non-monotonic action logics to control machines which interact heavily with humans. Such logics face special problems and require features which we need to recognise and to address. We believe that injecting argumentation methods into action pre-conditions is possibly the way to proceed to model what is needed. To get an idea of what is needed we must investigate a typical problem of replacing a human with a robot operating in a highly interactive environment. This paper focuses on replacing a human taxi driver by a robot. Robot driven cars are already under production and so there is an urgent need for modelling the kind of Artificial Intelligence/Logic/Norms/Ethics which is to be involved and installed in the mind of the Robot. This is research in progress. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 201 (7 UL)