58,018 research outputs found
Arguing Using Opponent Models
Peer reviewedPostprin
Theory of Regulatory Compliance for Requirements Engineering
Regulatory compliance is increasingly being addressed in the practice of
requirements engineering as a main stream concern. This paper points out a gap
in the theoretical foundations of regulatory compliance, and presents a theory
that states (i) what it means for requirements to be compliant, (ii) the
compliance problem, i.e., the problem that the engineer should resolve in order
to verify whether requirements are compliant, and (iii) testable hypotheses
(predictions) about how compliance of requirements is verified. The theory is
instantiated by presenting a requirements engineering framework that implements
its principles, and is exemplified on a real-world case study.Comment: 16 page
Recent Conceptual Consequences of Loop Quantum Gravity. Part II: Holistic Aspects
Based on the foundational aspects which have been discussed as consequences
of ongoing research on loop quantum gravity in the first part of this paper,
the holistic aspects of the latter are discussed in this second part, aiming at
a consistent and systematic approach to eventually model a hierarchically
ordered architecture of the world which is encompassing all of what there
actually is. The idea is to clarify the explicit relationship between physics
and philosophy on the one hand, and philosophy and the sciences in general, on
the other. It is shown that the ontological determination of worldliness is
practically identical with its epistemological determination so that the
(scientific) activity of modelling and representing the world can be visualized
itself as a (worldly) mode of being.Comment: 20 page
A response to âLikelihood ratio as weight of evidence: a closer lookâ by Lund and Iyer
Recently, Lund and Iyer (L&I) raised an argument regarding the use of likelihood ratios in court. In our view, their argument is based on a lack of understanding of the paradigm. L&I argue that the decision maker should not accept the expertâs likelihood ratio without further consideration. This is agreed by all parties. In normal practice, there is often considerable and proper exploration in court of the basis for any probabilistic statement. We conclude that L&I argue against a practice that does not exist and which no one advocates. Further we conclude that the most informative summary of evidential weight is the likelihood ratio. We state that this is the summary that should be presented to a court in every scientific assessment of evidential weight with supporting information about how it was constructed and on what it was based
Harnessing Higher-Order (Meta-)Logic to Represent and Reason with Complex Ethical Theories
The computer-mechanization of an ambitious explicit ethical theory, Gewirth's
Principle of Generic Consistency, is used to showcase an approach for
representing and reasoning with ethical theories exhibiting complex logical
features like alethic and deontic modalities, indexicals, higher-order
quantification, among others. Harnessing the high expressive power of Church's
type theory as a meta-logic to semantically embed a combination of quantified
non-classical logics, our work pushes existing boundaries in knowledge
representation and reasoning. We demonstrate that intuitive encodings of
complex ethical theories and their automation on the computer are no longer
antipodes.Comment: 14 page
- âŠ