Decrement Operators in Belief Change

While research on iterated revision is predominant in the field of iterated belief change, the class of iterated contraction operators received more attention in recent years. In this article, we examine a non-prioritized generalisation of iterated contraction. In particular, the class of weak decrement operators is introduced, which are operators that by multiple steps achieve the same as a contraction. Inspired by Darwiche and Pearl's work on iterated revision the subclass of decrement operators is defined. For both, decrement and weak decrement operators, postulates are presented and for each of them a representation theorem in the framework of total preorders is given. Furthermore, we present two sub-types of decrement operators

Balancing between cognitive and semantic acceptability of arguments

This paper addresses the problem concerning approximating human cognitions and semantic extensions regarding acceptability status of arguments. We introduce three types of logical equilibriums in terms of satisfiability, entailment and semantic equivalence in order to analyse balance of human cognitions and semantic extensions. The generality of our proposal is shown by the existence conditions of equilibrium solutions. The applicability of our proposal is demonstrated by the fact that it detects a flaw of argumentation actually taking place in an online forum and suggests its possible resolution

Abstract Argumentation / Persuasion / Dynamics

The act of persuasion, a key component in rhetoric argumentation, may be viewed as a dynamics modifier. We extend Dung's frameworks with acts of persuasion among agents, and consider interactions among attack, persuasion and defence that have been largely unheeded so far. We characterise basic notions of admissibilities in this framework, and show a way of enriching them through, effectively, CTL (computation tree logic) encoding, which also permits importation of the theoretical results known to the logic into our argumentation frameworks. Our aim is to complement the growing interest in coordination of static and dynamic argumentation.Comment: Arisaka R., Satoh K. (2018) Abstract Argumentation / Persuasion / Dynamics. In: Miller T., Oren N., Sakurai Y., Noda I., Savarimuthu B., Cao Son T. (eds) PRIMA 2018: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. PRIMA 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11224. Springer, Cha

A SPARQL Query Transformation Rule Language — Application to Retrieval and Adaptation in Case-Based Reasoning

International audienceThis paper presents SQTRL, a language for transformation rules for SPARQL queries, a tool associated with it, and how it can be applied to retrieval and adaptation in case-based reasoning (CBR). Three applications of SQTRL are presented in the domains of cooking and digital humanities. For a CBR system using RDFS for representing cases and domain knowledge, and SPARQL for its query language, case retrieval with SQTRL consists in a minimal modification of the query so that it matches at least a source case. Adaptation based on the modification of an RDFS base can also be handled with the help of this tool. SQTRL and its tool can therefore be used for several goals related to CBR systems based on the semantic web standards RDFS and SPARQL

Cognitive Defeasible Reasoning: the Extent to Which Forms of Defeasible Reasoning Correspond with Human Reasoning

Classical logic forms the basis of knowledge representation and reasoning in AI. In the real world, however, classical logic alone is insufficient to describe the reasoning behaviour of human beings. It lacks the flexibility so characteristically required of reasoning under uncer- tainty, reasoning under incomplete information and reasoning with new information, as humans must. In response, non-classical extensions to propositional logic have been formulated, to provide non-monotonicity. It has been shown in previous studies that human reasoning exhibits non- monotonicity. This work is the product of merging three independent studies, each one focusing on a different formalism for non-monotonic reasoning: KLM defeasible reasoning, AGM belief revision and KM belief update. We investigate, for each of the postulates propounded to characterise these logic forms, the extent to which they have correspondence with human reasoners. We do this via three respective experiments and present each of the postulates in concrete and abstract form. We discuss related work, our experiment design, testing and evaluation, and report on the results from our experiments. We find evidence to believe that 1 out of 5 KLM defeasible reasoning postulates, 3 out of 8 AGM belief revi- sion postulates and 4 out of 8 KM belief update postulates conform in both the concrete and abstract case. For each experiment, we performed an additional investigation. In the experiments of KLM defeasible rea- soning and AGM belief revision, we analyse the explanations given by participants to determine whether the postulates have a normative or descriptive relationship with human reasoning. We find evidence that suggests, overall, KLM defeasible reasoning has a normative relationship with human reasoning while AGM belief revision has a descriptive rela- tionship with human reasoning. In the experiment of KM belief update, we discuss counter-examples to the KM postulates

Rule(s) of Recognition and Canons of Interpretation

It is sometimes claimed (in Anglo-American jurisprudential literature) that the rule of recognition sets the criteria for identifying legal norms and that this, therefore, means that canons of interpretation are also part of these criteria. Such a view then faces the problem of theoretical disagreements that call into question the rule of recognition itself and legal positivistic accounts of law. The paper argues that the rule of recognition sets the criteria only for sources of law and not legal norms themselves and that a theory of interpretation that distinguishes between normative texts (sources of law) and legal norms (as meanings of legal texts) can help explain why the rule of recognition might still be conceived as a conventional rule based on the convergent practice of officials and the fact that officials sometimes disagree about the correct interpretation of legal texts