Last 7 days
Bookmark and Share    
See detailTowards AI Logic for Social Reasoning
Dong, Huimin; Markovich, Réka UL; van der Torre, Leon UL

E-print/Working paper (2021)

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 ... [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 ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 45 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailBase Argumentation as an Abstraction of Deductive Argumentation
Chen, Jinsheng; Liao, Beishui; van der Torre, Leon UL

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

Base argumentation is a logic-based instantiation of abstract argumentation. Each base argument is a subset of the given knowledge base. In this paper, we show that base argumentation satisfies some ... [more ▼]

Base argumentation is a logic-based instantiation of abstract argumentation. Each base argument is a subset of the given knowledge base. In this paper, we show that base argumentation satisfies some rationality postulates, and that base argumentation is equivalent to deductive argumentation under complete semantics. Due to its simplicity, base argumentation can be seen as an abstraction of deductive argumentation. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 23 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailExpectation: Personalized Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Decentralized Agents with Heterogeneous Knowledge
Calvaresi, Davide; Ciatto, Giovanni; Najjar, Amro UL et al

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)

Explainable AI (XAI) has emerged in recent years as a set of techniques and methodologies to interpret and explain machine learning (ML) predictors. To date, many initiatives have been proposed ... [more ▼]

Explainable AI (XAI) has emerged in recent years as a set of techniques and methodologies to interpret and explain machine learning (ML) predictors. To date, many initiatives have been proposed. Nevertheless, current research efforts mainly focus on methods tailored to specific ML tasks and algorithms, such as image classification and sentiment analysis. However, explanation techniques are still embryotic, and they mainly target ML experts rather than heterogeneous end-users. Furthermore, existing solutions assume data to be centralised, homogeneous, and fully/continuously accessible—circumstances seldom found altogether in practice. Arguably, a system-wide perspective is currently missing. The project named “Personalized Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Decentralized Agents with Heterogeneous Knowledge” (Expectation) aims at overcoming such limitations. This manuscript presents the overall objectives and approach of the Expectation project, focusing on the theoretical and practical advance of the state of the art of XAI towards the construction of personalised explanations in spite of decentralisation and heterogeneity of knowledge, agents, and explainees (both humans or virtual). To tackle the challenges posed by personalisation, decentralisation, and heterogeneity, the project fruitfully combines abstractions, methods, and approaches from the multi-agent systems, knowledge extraction / injec- tion, negotiation, argumentation, and symbolic reasoning communities. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 98 (9 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailPopulating legal ontologies using semantic role labeling
Humpreys, Lilo; Boella, Guido; van der Torre, Leon UL et al

in Artificial Intelligence and Law (2021), 29(2), 171-211

This article seeks to address the problem of the ‘resource consumption bottleneck’ of creating legal semantic technologies manually. It describes a semantic role labeling based information extraction ... [more ▼]

This article seeks to address the problem of the ‘resource consumption bottleneck’ of creating legal semantic technologies manually. It describes a semantic role labeling based information extraction system to extract definitions and norms from legislation and represent them as structured norms in legal ontologies. The output is intended to help make laws more accessible, understandable, and searchable in a legal document management system. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 29 (5 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detail執行にかかる属地主義と銀行口座の越境的差し押さえ
Cuniberti, Gilles UL

in Sakai, Hajime (Ed.) 国際的権利保護制度の構築 多様な権利と国際民事執行・保全法 (2021)

金銭債権執行、子の引渡し執行等、現代的重要テーマの検討。第1部:国際シンポジウム、第2部:研究論文として、海外からの論稿を含め、広範な視座から多角的に考察。第一線の執筆陣による、計16論文を掲載した充実の書。

Detailed reference viewed: 13 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailA De Lege Ferenda Perspective on Artificial Intelligence Systems Designated as Inventors in the European Patent System.
Stierle, Martin UL

in Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht. Internationaler Teil (2021)

The European patent system was designed around a paradigm of human inventorship. This paper will analyse in depth and from a de lege ferenda perspective the rather general arguments against and in favour ... [more ▼]

The European patent system was designed around a paradigm of human inventorship. This paper will analyse in depth and from a de lege ferenda perspective the rather general arguments against and in favour of a possible designation of artificial intelligence (AI) systems as inventors. For the sake of a more concrete discussion, it will also outline a potential reform of the European patent system to implement AI inventorship and allocate the right to the European patent for such inventions by default to the machine’s operator. In the process, it will highlight the major specific issues associated with a reform that acknowledges AI inventorship and touch upon possible alternative approaches to addressing the growing autonomy of machines within the R&D process. The study must not be understood as a call for a reform to recognise AI systems as inventors but rather as a manner of laying the foundations for a more concrete, critical and fruitful discussion on non-human inventorship and its alternatives. The analysis will show that the more general, highly conceptional reservations advanced in the current discussion against AI inventorship are somewhat unfounded, e.g. the alleged break with the functions of the current patent system or the alleged need to endow AI with legal personality. More convincing arguments against a reform that allows for the designation of AI systems as inventor might instead relate to the specific difficulties associated with such reform. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 29 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailUnverhältnismäßigkeit, Injunction Gap und Geheimnisschutz im Prozess. Das Zweite Patentrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz im Überblick.
Ohly, Ansgar; Stierle, Martin UL

in Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (2021)

Detailed reference viewed: 152 (1 UL)
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: 27 (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: 22 (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: 43 (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: 7 (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: 26 (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 detailCause of Action and the Right to Know
Markovich, Réka UL; Roy, Olivier

in Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (2021)

Detailed reference viewed: 18 (1 UL)