Interpretations of support among arguments

The theory of formal argumentation distinguishes and unifies various notions of attack, support and preference among arguments, and principles are used to classify the semantics of various kinds of argumentation frameworks. In this paper, we consider the case in which we know that an argument is supporting another one, but we do not know yet which kind of support it is. Most common in the literature is to classify support as deductive, necessary, or evidentiary. Alternatively, support is characterized using principles. We discuss the interpretation of support using a legal divorce action. Technical results and proofs can be found in an accompanying technical report

Reasoning in non-probabilistic uncertainty: logic programming and neural-symbolic computing as examples

This article aims to achieve two goals: to show that probability is not the only way of dealing with uncertainty (and even more, that there are kinds of uncertainty which are for principled reasons not addressable with probabilistic means); and to provide evidence that logic-based methods can well support reasoning with uncertainty. For the latter claim, two paradigmatic examples are presented: Logic Programming with Kleene semantics for modelling reasoning from information in a discourse, to an interpretation of the state of affairs of the intended model, and a neural-symbolic implementation of Input/Output logic for dealing with uncertainty in dynamic normative context

Avoiding deontic explosion by contextually restricting aggregation

In this paper, we present an adaptive logic for deontic conflicts, called P2.1(r), that is based on Goble's logic SDLaPe-a bimodal extension of Goble's logic P that invalidates aggregation for all prima facie obligations. The logic P2.1(r) has several advantages with respect to SDLaPe. For consistent sets of obligations it yields the same results as Standard Deontic Logic and for inconsistent sets of obligations, it validates aggregation "as much as possible". It thus leads to a richer consequence set than SDLaPe. The logic P2.1(r) avoids Goble's criticisms against other non-adjunctive systems of deontic logic. Moreover, it can handle all the 'toy examples' from the literature as well as more complex ones

Defeasible Logic: Agency, Intention and Obligation

We propose a computationally oriented non-monotonic multi-modal logic arising from the combination of agency, intention and obligation. We argue about the defeasible nature of these notions and then we show how to represent and reason with them in the setting of defeasible logic

Using Comparative Preference Statements in Hypervolume-Based Interactive Multiobjective Optimization

International audienceThe objective functions in multiobjective optimization problems are often non-linear, noisy, or not available in a closed form and evolutionary multiobjective optimization (EMO) algorithms have been shown to be well applicable in this case. Here, our objective is to facilitate interactive decision making by saving function evaluations outside the "interesting" regions of the search space within a hypervolume-based EMO algorithm. We focus on a basic model where the Decision Maker (DM) is always asked to pick the most desirable solution among a set. In addition to the scenario where this solution is chosen directly, we present the alternative to specify preferences via a set of so-called comparative preference statements. Examples on standard test problems show the working principles, the competitiveness, and the drawbacks of the proposed algorithm in comparison with the recent iTDEA algorithm

R&D Proposal Development of Micro-Pattern Gas Detector Technologies

Development of advanced gas-avalanche detector technologies and associated electronic-readout systems for applications in basic and applied researc