EMIL: Extracting Meaning from Inconsistent Language

Developments in formal and computational theories of argumentation reason with inconsistency. Developments in Computational Linguistics extract arguments from large textual corpora. Both developments head in the direction of automated processing and reasoning with inconsistent, linguistic knowledge so as to explain and justify arguments in a humanly accessible form. Yet, there is a gap between the coarse-grained, semi-structured knowledge-bases of computational theories of argumentation and fine-grained, highly-structured inferences from knowledge-bases derived from natural language. We identify several subproblems which must be addressed in order to bridge the gap. We provide a direct semantics for argumentation. It has attractive properties in terms of expressivity and complexity, enables reasoning by cases, and can be more highly structured. For language processing, we work with an existing controlled natural language (CNL), which interfaces with our computational theory of argumentation; the tool processes natural language input, translates them into a form for automated inference engines, outputs argument extensions, then generates natural language statements. The key novel adaptation incorporates the defeasible expression ‘it is usual that’. This is an important, albeit incremental, step to incorporate linguistic expressions of defeasibility. Overall, the novel contribution of the paper is an integrated, end-to-end argumentation system which bridges between automated defeasible reasoning and a natural language interface. Specific novel contributions are the theory of ‘direct semantics’, motivations for our theory, results with respect to the direct semantics, an implementation, experimental results, the tie between the formalisation and the CNL, the introduction into a CNL of a natural language expression of defeasibility, and an ‘engineering’ approach to fine-grained argument analysis

Controlled Natural Languages for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning

Controlled natural languages (CNLs) are effective languages for knowledge representation and reasoning. They are designed based on certain natural languages with restricted lexicon and grammar. CNLs are unambiguous and simple as opposed to their base languages. They preserve the expressiveness and coherence of natural languages. In this paper, it mainly focuses on a class of CNLs, called machine-oriented CNLs, which have well-defined semantics that can be deterministically translated into formal languages to do logical reasoning. Although a number of machine-oriented CNLs emerged and have been used in many application domains for problem solving and question answering, there are still many limitations: First, CNLs cannot handle inconsistencies in the knowledge base. Second, CNLs are not powerful enough to identify different variations of a sentence and therefore might not return the expected inference results. Third, CNLs do not have a good mechanism for defeasible reasoning. This paper addresses these three problems and proposes a research plan for solving these problems. It also shows the current state of research: a paraconsistent logical framework from which six principles that guide the user to encode CNL sentences were created. Experiment results show this paraconsistent logical framework and these six principles can consistently and effectively solve word puzzles with injections of inconsistencies

Working on the Argument Pipeline: Through Flow Issues between Natural Language Argument, Instantiated Arguments, and Argumentation Frameworks

In many domains of public discourse such as arguments about public policy, there is an abundance of knowledge to store, query, and reason with. To use this knowledge, we must address two key general problems: first, the problem of the knowledge acquisition bottleneck between forms in which the knowledge is usually expressed, e.g., natural language, and forms which can be automatically processed; second, reasoning with the uncertainties and inconsistencies of the knowledge. Given such complexities, it is labour and knowledge intensive to conduct policy consultations, where participants contribute statements to the policy discourse. Yet, from such a consultation, we want to derive policy positions, where each position is a set of consistent statements, but where positions may be mutually inconsistent. To address these problems and support policy-making consultations, we consider recent automated techniques in natural language processing, instantiating arguments, and reasoning with the arguments in argumentation frameworks. We discuss application and “bridge” issues between these techniques, outlining a pipeline of technologies whereby: expressions in a controlled natural language are parsed and translated into a logic (a literals and rules knowledge base), from which we generate instantiated arguments and their relationships using a logic-based formalism (an argument knowledge base), which is then input to an implemented argumentation framework that calculates extensions of arguments (an argument extensions knowledge base), and finally, we extract consistent sets of expressions (policy positions). The paper reports progress towards reasoning with web-based, distributed, collaborative, incomplete, and inconsistent knowledge bases expressed in natural language

Designing Normative Theories for Ethical and Legal Reasoning: LogiKEy Framework, Methodology, and Tool Support

A framework and methodology---termed LogiKEy---for the design and engineering of ethical reasoners, normative theories and deontic logics is presented. The overall motivation is the development of suitable means for the control and governance of intelligent autonomous systems. LogiKEy's unifying formal framework is based on semantical embeddings of deontic logics, logic combinations and ethico-legal domain theories in expressive classic higher-order logic (HOL). This meta-logical approach enables the provision of powerful tool support in LogiKEy: off-the-shelf theorem provers and model finders for HOL are assisting the LogiKEy designer of ethical intelligent agents to flexibly experiment with underlying logics and their combinations, with ethico-legal domain theories, and with concrete examples---all at the same time. Continuous improvements of these off-the-shelf provers, without further ado, leverage the reasoning performance in LogiKEy. Case studies, in which the LogiKEy framework and methodology has been applied and tested, give evidence that HOL's undecidability often does not hinder efficient experimentation.Comment: 50 pages; 10 figure

Intentional dialogues in multi-agent systems based on ontologies and argumentation

Some areas of application, for example, healthcare, are known to resist the replacement of human operators by fully autonomous systems. It is typically not transparent to users how artificial intelligence systems make decisions or obtain information, making it difficult for users to trust them. To address this issue, we investigate how argumentation theory and ontology techniques can be used together with reasoning about intentions to build complex natural language dialogues to support human decision-making. Based on such an investigation, we propose MAIDS, a framework for developing multi-agent intentional dialogue systems, which can be used in different domains. Our framework is modular so that it can be used in its entirety or just the modules that fulfil the requirements of each system to be developed. Our work also includes the formalisation of a novel dialogue-subdialogue structure with which we can address ontological or theory-of-mind issues and later return to the main subject. As a case study, we have developed a multi-agent system using the MAIDS framework to support healthcare professionals in making decisions on hospital bed allocations. Furthermore, we evaluated this multi-agent system with domain experts using real data from a hospital. The specialists who evaluated our system strongly agree or agree that the dialogues in which they participated fulfil Cohen’s desiderata for task-oriented dialogue systems. Our agents have the ability to explain to the user how they arrived at certain conclusions. Moreover, they have semantic representations as well as representations of the mental state of the dialogue participants, allowing the formulation of coherent justifications expressed in natural language, therefore, easy for human participants to understand. This indicates the potential of the framework introduced in this thesis for the practical development of explainable intelligent systems as well as systems supporting hybrid intelligence

JURI SAYS:An Automatic Judgement Prediction System for the European Court of Human Rights

In this paper we present the web platform JURI SAYS that automatically predicts decisions of the European Court of Human Rights based on communicated cases, which are published by the court early in the proceedings and are often available many years before the final decision is made. Our system therefore predicts future judgements of the court. The platform is available at jurisays.com and shows the predictions compared to the actual decisions of the court. It is automatically updated every month by including the prediction for the new cases. Additionally, the system highlights the sentences and paragraphs that are most important for the prediction (i.e. violation vs. no violation of human rights)

Reasoning about Cyber Threat Actors

abstract: Reasoning about the activities of cyber threat actors is critical to defend against cyber attacks. However, this task is difficult for a variety of reasons. In simple terms, it is difficult to determine who the attacker is, what the desired goals are of the attacker, and how they will carry out their attacks. These three questions essentially entail understanding the attacker’s use of deception, the capabilities available, and the intent of launching the attack. These three issues are highly inter-related. If an adversary can hide their intent, they can better deceive a defender. If an adversary’s capabilities are not well understood, then determining what their goals are becomes difficult as the defender is uncertain if they have the necessary tools to accomplish them. However, the understanding of these aspects are also mutually supportive. If we have a clear picture of capabilities, intent can better be deciphered. If we understand intent and capabilities, a defender may be able to see through deception schemes. In this dissertation, I present three pieces of work to tackle these questions to obtain a better understanding of cyber threats. First, we introduce a new reasoning framework to address deception. We evaluate the framework by building a dataset from DEFCON capture-the-flag exercise to identify the person or group responsible for a cyber attack. We demonstrate that the framework not only handles cases of deception but also provides transparent decision making in identifying the threat actor. The second task uses a cognitive learning model to determine the intent – goals of the threat actor on the target system. The third task looks at understanding the capabilities of threat actors to target systems by identifying at-risk systems from hacker discussions on darkweb websites. To achieve this task we gather discussions from more than 300 darkweb websites relating to malicious hacking.Dissertation/ThesisDoctoral Dissertation Computer Engineering 201

Evaluating the Impact of Defeasible Argumentation as a Modelling Technique for Reasoning under Uncertainty

Limited work exists for the comparison across distinct knowledge-based approaches in Artificial Intelligence (AI) for non-monotonic reasoning, and in particular for the examination of their inferential and explanatory capacity. Non-monotonicity, or defeasibility, allows the retraction of a conclusion in the light of new information. It is a similar pattern to human reasoning, which draws conclusions in the absence of information, but allows them to be corrected once new pieces of evidence arise. Thus, this thesis focuses on a comparison of three approaches in AI for implementation of non-monotonic reasoning models of inference, namely: expert systems, fuzzy reasoning and defeasible argumentation. Three applications from the fields of decision-making in healthcare and knowledge representation and reasoning were selected from real-world contexts for evaluation: human mental workload modelling, computational trust modelling, and mortality occurrence modelling with biomarkers. The link between these applications comes from their presumptively non-monotonic nature. They present incomplete, ambiguous and retractable pieces of evidence. Hence, reasoning applied to them is likely suitable for being modelled by non-monotonic reasoning systems. An experiment was performed by exploiting six deductive knowledge bases produced with the aid of domain experts. These were coded into models built upon the selected reasoning approaches and were subsequently elicited with real-world data. The numerical inferences produced by these models were analysed according to common metrics of evaluation for each field of application. For the examination of explanatory capacity, properties such as understandability, extensibility, and post-hoc interpretability were meticulously described and qualitatively compared. Findings suggest that the variance of the inferences produced by expert systems and fuzzy reasoning models was higher, highlighting poor stability. In contrast, the variance of argument-based models was lower, showing a superior stability of its inferences across different system configurations. In addition, when compared in a context with large amounts of conflicting information, defeasible argumentation exhibited a stronger potential for conflict resolution, while presenting robust inferences. An in-depth discussion of the explanatory capacity showed how defeasible argumentation can lead to the construction of non-monotonic models with appealing properties of explainability, compared to those built with expert systems and fuzzy reasoning. The originality of this research lies in the quantification of the impact of defeasible argumentation. It illustrates the construction of an extensive number of non-monotonic reasoning models through a modular design. In addition, it exemplifies how these models can be exploited for performing non-monotonic reasoning and producing quantitative inferences in real-world applications. It contributes to the field of non-monotonic reasoning by situating defeasible argumentation among similar approaches through a novel empirical comparison