Checking the validity of rule-based arguments grounded in cases:A computational approach

One puzzle studied in AI &amp; Law is how arguments, rules and cases are formally connected. Recently a formal theory was proposed formalizing how the validity of arguments based on rules can be grounded in cases. Three kinds of argument validity were distinguished: coherence, presumptive validity and conclusiveness. In this paper the theory is implemented in a Prolog program, used to evaluate a previously developed model of Dutch tort law. We also test the theory and its implementation with a new case study modeling Chinese copyright infringement law. In this way we illustrate that by the use of the implementation the process of modeling becomes more efficient and less error-prone.</p

How much of commonsense and legal reasoning is formalizable? A review of conceptual obstacles

Fifty years of effort in artificial intelligence (AI) and the formalization of legal reasoning have produced both successes and failures. Considerable success in organizing and displaying evidence and its interrelationships has been accompanied by failure to achieve the original ambition of AI as applied to law: fully automated legal decision-making. The obstacles to formalizing legal reasoning have proved to be the same ones that make the formalization of commonsense reasoning so difficult, and are most evident where legal reasoning has to meld with the vast web of ordinary human knowledge of the world. Underlying many of the problems is the mismatch between the discreteness of symbol manipulation and the continuous nature of imprecise natural language, of degrees of similarity and analogy, and of probabilities

A Framework for Combining Defeasible Argumentation with Labeled Deduction

In the last years, there has been an increasing demand of a variety of logical systems, prompted mostly by applications of logic in AI and other related areas. Labeled Deductive Systems (LDS) were developed as a flexible methodology to formalize such a kind of complex logical systems. Defeasible argumentation has proven to be a successful approach to formalizing commonsense reasoning, encompassing many other alternative formalisms for defeasible reasoning. Argument-based frameworks share some common notions (such as the concept of argument, defeater, etc.) along with a number of particular features which make it difficult to compare them with each other from a logical viewpoint. This paper introduces LDSar, a LDS for defeasible argumentation in which many important issues concerning defeasible argumentation are captured within a unified logical framework. We also discuss some logical properties and extensions that emerge from the proposed framework.Comment: 15 pages, presented at CMSRA Workshop 2003. Buenos Aires, Argentin

Semantic Criteria of Correct Formalization

This paper compares several models of formalization. It articulates criteria of correct formalization and identifies their problems. All of the discussed criteria are so called “semantic” criteria, which refer to the interpretation of logical formulas. However, as will be shown, different versions of an implicitly applied or explicitly stated criterion of correctness depend on different understandings of “interpretation” in this context

Experience Implementing a Performant Category-Theory Library in Coq

We describe our experience implementing a broad category-theory library in Coq. Category theory and computational performance are not usually mentioned in the same breath, but we have needed substantial engineering effort to teach Coq to cope with large categorical constructions without slowing proof script processing unacceptably. In this paper, we share the lessons we have learned about how to represent very abstract mathematical objects and arguments in Coq and how future proof assistants might be designed to better support such reasoning. One particular encoding trick to which we draw attention allows category-theoretic arguments involving duality to be internalized in Coq's logic with definitional equality. Ours may be the largest Coq development to date that uses the relatively new Coq version developed by homotopy type theorists, and we reflect on which new features were especially helpful.Comment: The final publication will be available at link.springer.com. This version includes a full bibliography which does not fit in the Springer version; other than the more complete references, this is the version submitted as a final copy to ITP 201

An Introduction to Mechanized Reasoning

Mechanized reasoning uses computers to verify proofs and to help discover new theorems. Computer scientists have applied mechanized reasoning to economic problems but -- to date -- this work has not yet been properly presented in economics journals. We introduce mechanized reasoning to economists in three ways. First, we introduce mechanized reasoning in general, describing both the techniques and their successful applications. Second, we explain how mechanized reasoning has been applied to economic problems, concentrating on the two domains that have attracted the most attention: social choice theory and auction theory. Finally, we present a detailed example of mechanized reasoning in practice by means of a proof of Vickrey's familiar theorem on second-price auctions

Formalization of the fundamental group in untyped set theory using auto2

We present a new framework for formalizing mathematics in untyped set theory using auto2. Using this framework, we formalize in Isabelle/FOL the entire chain of development from the axioms of set theory to the definition of the fundamental group for an arbitrary topological space. The auto2 prover is used as the sole automation tool, and enables succinct proof scripts throughout the project.Comment: 17 pages, accepted for ITP 201