Local Logics, Non-Monotonicity and Defeasible Argumentation

In this paper we present an embedding of abstract argumentation systems into the framework of Barwise and Seligmans logic of information flow. We show that, taking P.M. Dungs characterization of argument systems, a local logic over states of a deliberation may be constructed. In this structure, the key feature of non-monotonicity of commonsense reasoning obtains as the transition from one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dungs extensions of argument systems leads to a corresponding ordering of background conditions. The relations among extensions becomes a relation among partial orderings of background conditions. This introduces a conceptual innovation in Barwise and Seligmans representation of commonsense reasoning.     

A Mechanization of Unity in PC-NQTHM-92

This paper presents in detail how the Unity logic for reasoning about concurrent programs was formalized within the mechanized theorem prover PC-NQTHM-92. Most of Unitys proof rules were formalized in the unquantified logic of NQTHM, and the proof system has been used to mechanically verify several concurrent programs. The mechanized proof system is sound by construction, since Unitys proof rules were proved about an operational semantics of concurrency, also presented here. Skolem functions are used instead of quantifiers, and the paper describes how proof rules containing Skolem function are used instead of Unitys quantified proof rules when verifying concurrent programs. This formalization includes several natural extensions to Unity, including nondeterministic statements. The paper concludes with a discussion of the cost and value of mechanization.     

Defaults as restrictions on classical Hilbert-style proofs

Since the earliest formalisation of default logic by Reiter many contributions to this appealing approach to nonmonotonic reasoning have been given. The different formalisations are here presented in a general framework that gathers the basic notions, concepts and constructions underlying default logic. Our view is to interpret defaults as special rules that impose a restriction on the juxtaposition of monotonic Hubert-style proofs of a given logicL. We propose to describe default logic as a logic where the juxtaposition of default proofs is subordinate to a restriction condition . Hence a default logic is a pair (L, ) where properties of the logic , like compactness, can be interpreted through the restriction condition . Different default systems are then given a common characterization through a specific condition on the logicL. We also prove cumulativity for any default logic (L, ) by slightly modifying the notion of default proof. We extend, in fact, the language ofL in a way close to that followed by Brewka in the formulation of his cumulative default system. Finally we show the existence of infinitely many intermediary default logics, depending on and called linear logics, which lie between Reiter's and ukaszewicz' versions of default logic.Work carried out in the framework of the agreement between Italian PT Administration and FUBLaforia, Université Paris VI Pierre et Marie Curie, 4 Place Jussieu,Tour 46, 75252 Paris, France     

A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match

This paper describes a model of legal reasoning and a logic for reasoning with rules, principles and goals that is especially suited to this model of legal reasoning. The paper consists of three parts. The first part describes a model of legal reasoning based on a two-layered view of the law. The first layer consists of principles and goals that express fundamental ideas of a legal system. The second layer contains legal rules which in a sense summarise the outcome of the interaction of the principles and goals for a number of case types. Both principles, goals and rules can be used in legal arguments, but their logical roles are different. One characteristic of the model of legal reasoning described in the first part of the paper is that it takes these logical differences into account. Another characteristic is that it pays serious attention to the phenomena of reasoning about the validity and acceptance of rules, respectively principles and goals, and about the application of legal rules, and the implications of these arguments for the use of rules, principles and goals in deriving legal conclusions for concrete cases.The second part of the paper first describes a logic (Reason-Based Logic) that is especially suited to deal with legal arguments as described in terms of the previously discussed model. The facilities of the logic are illustrated by means of examples that correspond to the several aspects of the model.The third part of the paper deals with a number of logico-philosophical reflections on Reason-Based Logic. The occasion is also used to compare these presuppositions with theories of defeasible reasoning based on the comparison of arguments.The ideas developed in this paper are based on the draft of my book Reasoning with rules which will be published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in the Law and Philosophy Series. The book offers not only more elaborate and sometimes different treatments of the topics of this paper, but also pays more attention to the philosophical background of this work.     

Dualities between alternative semantics for logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning

The Gelfond-Lifschitz operator associated with a logic program (and likewise the operator associated with default theories by Reiter) exhibits oscillating behavior. In the case of logic programs, there is always at least one finite, nonempty collection of Herbrand interpretations around which the Gelfond-Lifschitz operator bounces around. The same phenomenon occurs with default logic when Reiter's operator is considered. Based on this, a stable class semantics and extension class semantics has been proposed. The main advantage of this semantics was that it was defined for all logic programs (and default theories), and that this definition was modelled using the standard operators existing in the literature such as Reiter's operator. In this paper our primary aim is to prove that there is a very interestingduality between stable class theory and the well-founded semantics for logic programming. In the stable class semantics, classes that were minimal with respect to Smyth's power-domain ordering were selected. We show that the well-founded semantics precisely corresponds to a class that is minimal w.r.t. Hoare's power domain ordering: the well-known dual of Smyth's ordering. Besides this elegant duality, this immediately suggests how to define a well-founded semantics for default logic in such a way that the dualities that hold for logic programming continue to hold for default theories. We show how the same technique may be applied to strong autoepistemic logic: the logic of strong expansions proposed by Marek and Truszczynski.     

A modal contrastive logic: The logic of ‘but’

In this paper we present a modal approach to contrastive logic, the logic of contrasts as these appear in natural language conjunctions such as but. We use a simple modal logic, which is an extension of the well-knownS5 logic, and base the contrastive operators proposed by Francez in [2] on the basic modalities that appear in this logic. We thus obtain a logic for contrastive operators that is more in accord with the tradition of intensional logic, and that, moreover — we argue — has some more natural properties. Particularly, attention is paid to nesting contrastive operators. We show that nestings of but give quite natural results, and indicate how nestings of other contrastive operators can be done adequately. Finally, we discuss the example of the Hangman's Paradox and some similarities (and differences) with default reasoning. But but us no buts, as they say.Also partially supported by Nijmegen University, Toernooiveld, 6525 ED Nijmegen, The Netherlands.     

Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks

The abstract nature of Dung's seminal theory of argumentation accounts for its widespread application as a general framework for various species of non-monotonic reasoning, and, more generally, reasoning in the presence of conflict. A Dung argumentation framework is instantiated by arguments and a binary conflict based attack relation, defined by some underlying logical theory. The justified arguments under different extensional semantics are then evaluated, and the claims of these arguments define the inferences of the underlying theory. To determine a unique set of justified arguments often requires a preference relation on arguments to determine the success of attacks between arguments. However, preference information is often itself defeasible, conflicting and so subject to argumentation. Hence, in this paper we extend Dung's theory to accommodate arguments that claim preferences between other arguments, thus incorporating meta-level argumentation based reasoning about preferences in the object level. We then define and study application of the full range of Dung's extensional semantics to the extended framework, and study special classes of the extended framework. The extended theory preserves the abstract nature of Dung's approach, thus aiming at a general framework for non-monotonic formalisms that accommodate defeasible reasoning about as well as with preference information. We illustrate by formalising argument based logic programming with defeasible priorities in the extended theory.     

Computations in fragments of intuitionistic propositional logic

This article is a report on research in progress into the structure of finite diagrams of intuitionistic propositional logic with the aid of automated reasoning systems for larger calculations. Afragment of a propositional logic is the set of formulae built up from a finite number of propositional variables by means of a number of connectives of the logic, among which possibly non-standard ones like ¬¬ or which are studied here. Thediagram of that fragment is the set of equivalence classes of its formulae partially ordered by the derivability relation. N.G. de Bruijn's concept of exact model has been used to construct subdiagrams of the [p, q, , , ¬]-fragment.     

Applying Dialectic Agents to Argumentation in E-Commerce

Reaching an agreement or understanding through argumentation is an important aspect of decision making in a virtual society as well as in our real society. In this paper, we consider compromise (Aufheben) and concession (weaker Aufheben) as a simple form of Hegelian dialectical reasoning, which we think are desiderata to deliberate or cognitive agents. We then propose an argument-based agent system that allows for the issue modification among agents concerned during argumentation and reaching an agreement or understanding through argumentation with the dialectical reasoning capability. We illustrate its potential usefulness by showing applications to seller and buyer agents and traveling salesman agents in e-commerce.     

The Possibilistic Handling of Irrelevance in Exception-Tolerant Reasoning

In nonmonotonic reasoning, the preferential system P is known to provide reasonable but very cautious conclusions, and in particular, preferential inference is blocked by the presence of irrelevant properties. When using Lehmann's rational closure, the inference machinery, which is then more productive, may still remain too cautious. These two types of inference can be represented using a possibility theory-based semantics. To overcome the cautiousness of system P, we first progressively augment preferential inference with two extensions which are in between system P and rational closure. Then, in order to overcome some remaining limitations of rational closure the second half of this paper focuses more particularly on the use of (contextual) independence assumptions of the form: the fact that is true (or is false) does not affect the validity of the rule normally if then . The modelling of such independence assumptions is discussed in the possibilistic framework. Algorithms are provided to jointly handle default rules and independence relations, and to check their multual consistency.     

Query answering via cooperative data inference

This paper proposes the use of accessible information (data/knowledge) to infer inaccessible data in a distributed database system. Inference rules are extracted from databases by means of knowledge discovery techniques. These rules can derive inaccessible data due to a site failure or network partition in a distributed system. Such query answering requires combining incomplete and partial information from multiple sources. The derived answer may be exact or approximate. Our inference process involves two phases to reason with reconstructed information. One phase involves using local rules to infer inaccessible data. A second phase involves merging information from different sites. We shall call such reasoning processes cooperative data inference. Since the derived answer may be incomplete, new algebraic tools are developed for supporting operations on incomplete information. A weak criterion called toleration is introduced for evaluating the inferred results. The conditions that assure the correctness of combining partial results, known as sound inference paths, are developed. A solution is presented for terminating an iterative reasoning process on derived data from multiple knowledge sources. The proposed approach has been implemented on a cooperative distributed database testbed, CoBase, at UCLA. The experimental results validate the feasibility of this proposed concept and can significantly improve the availability of distributed knowledge base/database systems.List of notation Mapping - --< Logical implication - = Symbolic equality - ==< Inference path - Satisfaction - Toleration - Undefined (does not exist) - Variable-null (may or may not exist) - ^* Subtuple relationship - ^* s-membership - s-containment - Open subtuple - Open s-membership - Open s-containment - _P Open base - P Program - I Interpretation - DIP Data inference program - t Tuples - R Relations - Ø Empty interpretation - Open s-union - Open s-interpretation - Set of mapping from the set of objects to the set of closed objects - W Set of attributes - _W Set of sound inference paths on the set of attributes W - Set of relational schemas in a DB that satisfy MVD - ⁺ Range closure of W wrt      

The “explicit-implicit” distinction

Much of traditional AI exemplifies the explicit representation paradigm, and during the late 1980's a heated debate arose between the classical and connectionist camps as to whether beliefs and rules receive an explicit or implicit representation in human cognition. In a recent paper, Kirsh (1990) questions the coherence of the fundamental distinction underlying this debate. He argues that our basic intuitions concerning explicit and implicit representations are not only confused but inconsistent. Ultimately, Kirsh proposes a new formulation of the distinction, based upon the criterion ofconstant time processing.The present paper examines Kirsh's claims. It is argued that Kirsh fails to demonstrate that our usage of explicit and implicit is seriously confused or inconsistent. Furthermore, it is argued that Kirsh's new formulation of the explicit-implicit distinction is excessively stringent, in that it banishes virtually all sentences of natural language from the realm of explicit representation. By contrast, the present paper proposes definitions for explicit and implicit which preserve most of our strong intuitions concerning straightforward uses of these terms. It is also argued that the distinction delineated here sustains the meaningfulness of the abovementioned debate between classicists and connectionists.     

More Church–Rosser Proofs

The proofs of the Church–Rosser theorems for , , and reduction in untyped -calculus are formalized in Isabelle/HOL, an implementation of Higher Order Logic in the generic theorem prover Isabelle. For -reduction, both the standard proof and Takahashi's are given and compared. All proofs are based on a general theory of commutating relations that supports an almost geometric style of reasoning about confluence diagrams.     

Sequent calculi for skeptical reasoning in predicate default logic and other nonmonotonic logics

Sequent calculi for skeptical consequence in predicate default logic, predicate stable model logic programming, and infinite autoepistemic theories are presented and proved sound and complete. While skeptical consequence is decidable in the finite propositional case of all three formalisms, the move to predicate or infinite theories increases the complexity of skeptical reasoning to being ₁¹-complete. This implies the need for sequent rules with countably many premises, and such rules are employed. AMS subject classification 03B42, 68N17, 68T27This paper grew directly out of the authors dissertation, written under the direction of Anil Nerode.     

A Hyperbase for Binary Lattice Hyperidentities

We define an identity to be hypersatisfied by a variety V if, whenever the operation symbols of V, are replaced by arbitrary terms (of appropriate arity) in the operations of V, the resulting identity is satisfied by V in the usual sense. Whenever the identity is hypersatisfied by a variety V, we shall say that is a V hyperidentity. For example, the identity x + x y = x (x + y) is hypersatisfied by the variety L of all lattices. A proof of this consists of a case-by-case examination of { + , } {x, y, x y, x y}, the set of all binary lattice terms. In an earlier work, we exhibited a hyperbase ^L for the set of all binary lattice (or, equivalently, quasilattice) hyperidentities of type 2, 2. In this paper we provide a greatly refined hyperbase _L . The proof that _L is a hyperbase was obtained by using the automated reasoning program Otter 3.0.4.     

Redesign of a Systems Engineering Language: Formalisation of χ

This paper describes the redesign of a systems engineering language called . This is an engineering language designed to specify and analyse industrial systems. The main objective of this redesign was to enable mathematical reasoning about specifications. We discuss the original language, the requirements and design decisions, and the resulting syntax and semantics of the new version of , called . In particular, we elaborate on semantical aspects of s time model.     

Globalisation, place and gender

Current processes linking different parts of the world together economically and culturally are referred to asglobalisation. Though this term has gained immense popularity within a short time, critics have argued that it is hard to find empirical evidence that the world is becoming one. A crucial question is thenhow to look for such evidence. In many studies of globalisation, the general view taken is that of global, meaning that one searches for a global overview, or outlook, which is situated at no specific place. The present paper argues for a shift of focus, reasoning that to understand what is global we have to start with the local. The experiences of the global take place in particular local places, and to study such processes of change we need to situate our study in such a way that we can study the relationships between the local and the global. The particular place where our study takes place is rural Malaysia. Changes related to industrialisation are often spoken of in rather deterministic terms, in the sense that the local population are victims of a global shift, whereas we argue for an alternative approach, analysing women workers as agents of change within their local community. Globalisation also mainly refers to external forces imposed on local actors, whereas we find the local to be imperative for the strategies of industrialists, as well as for the present processes of change.     

Exception Handling in Workflow Systems

In this paper, defeasible workflow is proposed as a framework to support exception handling for workflow management. By using the justified ECA rules to capture more contexts in workflow modeling, defeasible workflow uses context dependent reasoning to enhance the exception handling capability of workflow management systems. In particular, this limits possible alternative exception handler candidates in dealing with exceptional situations. Furthermore, a case-based reasoning (CBR) mechanism with integrated human involvement is used to improve the exception handling capabilities. This involves collecting cases to capture experiences in handling exceptions, retrieving similar prior exception handling cases, and reusing the exception handling experiences captured in those cases in new situations.     

Information Gaps as Communication Needs: A New Semantic Foundation for Some Non-Classical Logics

Semantics connected to some information based metaphor are well-known in logic literature: a paradigmatic example is Kripke semantic for Intuitionistic Logic. In this paper we start from the concrete problem of providing suitable logic-algebraic models for the calculus of attribute dependencies in Formal Contexts with information gaps and we obtain an intuitive model based on the notion of passage of information showing that Kleene algebras, semi-simple Nelson algebras, three-valued ukasiewicz algebras and Post algebras of order three are, in a sense, naturally and directly connected to partially defined information systems. In this way wecan provide for these logic-algebraic structures a raison dêetre different from the original motivations concerning, for instance, computability theory.     

A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning

Inspired by legal reasoning, this paper presents a formal framework for assessing conflicting arguments. Its use is illustrated with applications to realistic legal examples, and the potential for implementation is discussed. The framework has the form of a logical system for defeasible argumentation. Its language, which is of a logic-programming-like nature, has both weak and explicit negation, and conflicts between arguments are decided with the help of priorities on the rules. An important feature of the system is that these priorities are not fixed, but are themselves defeasibly derived as conclusions within the system. Thus debates on the choice between conflicting arguments can also be modelled.The proof theory of the system is stated in dialectical style, where a proof takes the form of a dialogue between a proponent and an opponent of an argument. An argument is shown to be justified if the proponent can make the opponent run out of moves in whatever way the opponent attacks. Despite this dialectical form, the system reflects a declarative, or relational approach to modelling legal argument. A basic assumption of this paper is that this approach complements two other lines of research in AI and Law, investigations of precedent-based reasoning and the development of procedural, or dialectical models of legal argument.Supported by a research fellowship of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, and by Esprit WG 8319 Modelage.