Last 7 days
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailA Logical Analysis of Freedom of Thought
Markovich, Réka UL; Roy, Olivier

in Deontic Logic and Normative Systems (2021)

Detailed reference viewed: 41 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailFormalizing the Right to Know – Epistemic Rights as Normative Positions
Markovich, Réka UL; Roy, Olivier

in Logics for New-Generation AI 2021 (2021)

Detailed reference viewed: 34 (1 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailHandlungsmöglichkeiten zur Unterstützung von Schülerinnen und Schülern mit Verhaltensauffälligkeiten
Müller, Christoph Michael; Zurbriggen, Carmen UL

in Kunz, André; Luder, Reto; Müller Bösch, Cornelia (Eds.) Inklusive Pädagogik und Didaktik (2021)

Detailed reference viewed: 62 (1 UL)
See detailDas illustrierte Flugblatt als Wissensmedium der Frühen Neuzeit. Zeigestrategien und Vermittlungspotenzial eines zweikanaligen Kommunikationssystems.
Te Heesen, Kerstin UL

in Kollman, Stefanie; Reh, Sabine (Eds.) Zeigen und Bildung. Das Bild als Medium der Unterrichtung seit der frühen Neuzeit. 1. Workshop "Pictura Paedagogica Online: Pädagogisches Wissen in Bildern" (2021)

Detailed reference viewed: 15 (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: 38 (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: 23 (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: 27 (2 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: 29 (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: 25 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailCause of Action and the Right to Know
Markovich, Réka UL; Roy, Olivier

in Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (2021)

Detailed reference viewed: 26 (1 UL)
Full Text
See detailOn the Strength of Defeasible Inference Trees
Weydert, Emil UL

Presentation (2021)

Detailed reference viewed: 27 (0 UL)
Full Text
See detailOn the Allocation of Competences between the European Union and its Member States in the Media Sector
Cole, Mark David UL

Book published by Nomos (2021)

With a special focus on safeguarding media pluralism, this study sheds light on the allocation of competences between the EU and the Member States in the media sector. Not only is the primary and ... [more ▼]

With a special focus on safeguarding media pluralism, this study sheds light on the allocation of competences between the EU and the Member States in the media sector. Not only is the primary and secondary legal framework analysed in detail, but the relevant elements for ensuring media pluralism at EU level and core problems in media regulation under public international law are also examined. The study identifies both existing and potential tensions between national and EU level as well as limits to EU regulatory action. The analysis is put into context with the EU Digital Services Act Package and concludes with the identification of policy options for Member States. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 59 (2 UL)
Full Text
See detailContributor: Creating Public History Master Programs: International Guidelines
Cauvin, Thomas UL; Montt, Maria; Stoutamire, Will et al

Diverse speeches and writings (2021)

Detailed reference viewed: 32 (3 UL)
Full Text
See detail口座保全命令に関するEU 規則(EAPO 規則)について
Cuniberti, Gilles UL

in 京女法学 (2021), 19

Detailed reference viewed: 74 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailRefletir sobre infância, educação e cultura a partir do livro “O mundo até ontem”
Pinto, Rooney; de Albuquerque Trigo, Maiza UL

in Educação, Ciência e Cultura (2021), 26(3), 1-16

Este trabalho traz reflexões sobre infância, educação e cultura a partir do livro “O mundo até ontem: O que podemos aprender com as sociedades tradicionais?”, de autoria de Jared Diamond, com particular ... [more ▼]

Este trabalho traz reflexões sobre infância, educação e cultura a partir do livro “O mundo até ontem: O que podemos aprender com as sociedades tradicionais?”, de autoria de Jared Diamond, com particular foco no capítulo cinco “Educar Crianças”, da parte três “Novos e Velhos”. Para além de aspectos relacionados ao parto, maternidade e infanticídio, a obra explora o conceito de infância e de educação em diálogo com o grupo social. Enfatiza os comportamentos e estímulos educacionais das sociedades tradicionais e sua ligação aos seus contextos sociais e culturais que se refletem sobre a educação dos mais novos. Neste cenário, a criança é estimulada em sua autonomia e habilidades sociais através das brincadeiras com grupos multietários. O exercício social da aprendizagem pela consequência dos atos, comum na sociedade tradicional observada pelo autor, serve de reflexão ao polêmico tema contemporâneo da punição física ou moral nos processos educativos. Ainda que a obra não esteja focada no âmbito da educação, o autor apresenta particularidades sociais e culturais que permitem-nos refletir sobre como estão sendo educadas nossas crianças numa sociedade avançada tecnologicamente e empobrecida humanamente. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 49 (4 UL)
Full Text
See detailNew-Generation AIs Reasoning about Norms and Values
Markovich, Réka UL; Najjar, Amro UL; van der Torre, Leon UL

in Logics for New-Generation AI 2021 (2021)

Detailed reference viewed: 68 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailArgumentation in Trust Services within a Blockchain Environment
Yu, Liuwen UL; Zichichi, Mirko; Najjar, Amro UL et al

in Leiva, Luis A.; Pruski, Cedric; Najjar, Amro (Eds.) et al Proceedings of the 33rd Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the 30th Belgian Dutch Conference on Machine Learning (BNAIC/BENELEARN 2021) (2021)

Both argumentation and trust concern multi-lateral uncertainties, while argumentation owns the ability to enhance trust in many ways. In the field of trust service where the trustee administers financial ... [more ▼]

Both argumentation and trust concern multi-lateral uncertainties, while argumentation owns the ability to enhance trust in many ways. In the field of trust service where the trustee administers financial assets on behalf of principals, trust is an indispensable element. Often, the trustees withhold the investment plans and of which the decision-making process from their principals such that these services lack of transparency, documentation, traceability, and inclusive decision-making mechanisms. In this paper, we integrate formal argumentation within a blockchain framework. Both argumentation and blockchain have distinctive features that complement each other. They together make the decision-making of the trustees transparent and traceable in order to gain trust and confidence in principals. We introduce three possible architectures and we evaluate and compare them considering different technical, financial, and legal aspects. Specifically, we discuss the role of argumentation in building trust between trustees and their principals. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 75 (3 UL)