Interaction between Normative Systems and Cognitive Agents in Temporal Modal Defeasible Logic

While some recent frameworks on cognitive agents addressed the combination of mental attitudes with deontic concepts, they commonly ignore the representation of time. An exception is [1]that manages also some temporal aspects both with respect to cognition and normative provisions. We propose in this paper an extension of the logic presented in [1]with temporal intervals

Modelling Dialogues for Optimal Legislation

International audienceThis paper presents a framework for modelling legislative deliberation in the form of dialogues. Roughly, in legislative dialogues coalitions can dynamically change and propose rule-based theories associated with different utility functions, depending on the legislative theory the coalitions are trying to determine. CCS CONCEPTS • Applied computing → Law, social and behavioral sciences; Law

On the Representation of Deadlines in a Rental Agreement

The paper provides a conceptual analysis of deadlines, represented in Temporal Modal Defeasible Logic. The typology is based on the following parameters: kind of deontic operator, maintenance or achievement, presence of explicit sanctions, and persistence after the deadline. The adequacy of the typology is validated against a case study of a rental agreement

A Labelling Framework for Probabilistic Argumentation

The combination of argumentation and probability paves the way to new accounts of qualitative and quantitative uncertainty, thereby offering new theoretical and applicative opportunities. Due to a variety of interests, probabilistic argumentation is approached in the literature with different frameworks, pertaining to structured and abstract argumentation, and with respect to diverse types of uncertainty, in particular the uncertainty on the credibility of the premises, the uncertainty about which arguments to consider, and the uncertainty on the acceptance status of arguments or statements. Towards a general framework for probabilistic argumentation, we investigate a labelling-oriented framework encompassing a basic setting for rule-based argumentation and its (semi-) abstract account, along with diverse types of uncertainty. Our framework provides a systematic treatment of various kinds of uncertainty and of their relationships and allows us to back or question assertions from the literature

Variants of temporal defeasible logics for modelling norm modifications

This paper proposes some variants of Temporal Defeasible Logic (TDL) to reason about normative modifications. These variants make it possible to differentiate cases in which, for example, modifications at some time change legal rules but their conclusions persist afterwards from cases where also their conclusions are blocked

FIPA Communicative Acts in Defeasible Logic

In agent communication languages, the inferences that can be made on the basis of a communicative action are inherently conditional, and non-monotonic. For example, a proposal only leads to a commitment, on the condition that it is accepted. And in a persuasion dialogue, assertions may later be retracted. In this paper we therefore present a defeasible logic that can be used to express a semantics for agent communication languages, and to efficiently make inferences on the basis of communicative actions. The logic is non-monotonic, allows nested rules and mental attitudes as the content of communicative actions, and has an explicit way of expressing persistence over time. Moreover, it expresses that mental attitudes are publicly attributed to agents playing roles in the dialogue. To illustrate the usefulness of the logic, we reformalize the meta-theory underlying the FIPA semantics for agent communication, focusing on inform and propose. We show how composed speech acts can be formalized, and extend the semantics with an account of persuasion

Normative Modifications in Defeasible Logic

This paper proposes a framework based on Defeasible Logic (DL) to reason about normative modifications. We show how to express them in DL and how the logic deals with conflicts between temporalised normative modifications. Some comments will be given with regard to the phenomenon of retroactivity

A deontic argumentation framework towards doctrine reification

First published online: 31 August 2019A modular rule-based argumentation system is proposed to represent and reason upon conditional norms featuring obligations, prohibitions, and (strong or weak) permissions. The approach is based on common constructs in computational models of argument: rule-based arguments, argumentation graphs, argument labelling semantics and statement labelling semantics. Deontic reasoning patterns are captured with defeasible rule schemata to the greatest extent, towards the reification of doctrinal pieces. We show then that bivalent statement labelling s can fall short to address normative completeness, and for this reason, we propose to use trivalent labelling semantics. Given an argumentation graph, deontic statuses can be computed efficiently. The system is illustrated with a scenario featuring a violation and a contrary-to-duty obligation