Explaining Non-monotonic Normative Reasoning using Argumentation Theory with Deontic Logic

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.11780v1
• Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 08:03:29 GMT
• Title: Explaining Non-monotonic Normative Reasoning using Argumentation Theory with Deontic Logic
• Authors: Zhe Yu, Yiwei Lu,
• Abstract summary: This paper explores how to provide designers with effective explanations for their legally relevant design decisions. We extend the previous system for providing explanations by specifying norms and the key legal or ethical principles for justifying actions in normative contexts. Considering that first-order logic has strong expressive power, in the current paper we adopt a first-order deontic logic system with deontic operators and preferences.
• Score: 7.162465547358201
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In our previous research, we provided a reasoning system (called LeSAC) based on argumentation theory to provide legal support to designers during the design process. Building on this, this paper explores how to provide designers with effective explanations for their legally relevant design decisions. We extend the previous system for providing explanations by specifying norms and the key legal or ethical principles for justifying actions in normative contexts. Considering that first-order logic has strong expressive power, in the current paper we adopt a first-order deontic logic system with deontic operators and preferences. We illustrate the advantages and necessity of introducing deontic logic and designing explanations under LeSAC by modelling two cases in the context of autonomous driving. In particular, this paper also discusses the requirements of the updated LeSAC to guarantee rationality, and proves that a well-defined LeSAC can satisfy the rationality postulate for rule-based argumentation frameworks. This ensures the system's ability to provide coherent, legally valid explanations for complex design decisions.

Related papers

• Logic Rules as Explanations for Legal Case Retrieval [9.240902132139187]
  We propose a framework that conducts reasoning on the matching of legal cases through learning case-level and law-level logic rules. Benefiting from the logic and interpretable nature of the logic rules, NS-LCR is equipped with built-in faithful explainability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-03T09:22:21Z)
• Chain of Logic: Rule-Based Reasoning with Large Language Models [10.017812995997753]
  Rule-based reasoning enables us to draw conclusions by accurately applying a rule to a set of facts. We introduce a new prompting method, Chain of Logic, which elicits rule-based reasoning through decomposition and recomposition. We evaluate chain of logic across eight rule-based reasoning tasks involving three distinct compositional rules from the LegalBench benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T01:54:43Z)
• An Encoding of Abstract Dialectical Frameworks into Higher-Order Logic [57.24311218570012]
  This approach allows for the computer-assisted analysis of abstract dialectical frameworks. Exemplary applications include the formal analysis and verification of meta-theoretical properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-08T09:32:26Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [50.69905074548764]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way. Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• Legal Detection of AI Products Based on Formal Argumentation and Legal Ontology [4.286330841427189]
  Current paper presents a structured argumentation framework for reasoning in legal contexts. We show that using this combined theory of formal argumentation and DL-based legal logic, acceptable assertions can be obtained.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-07T11:08:08Z)
• Discourse-Aware Graph Networks for Textual Logical Reasoning [142.0097357999134]
  Passage-level logical relations represent entailment or contradiction between propositional units (e.g., a concluding sentence) We propose logic structural-constraint modeling to solve the logical reasoning QA and introduce discourse-aware graph networks (DAGNs) The networks first construct logic graphs leveraging in-line discourse connectives and generic logic theories, then learn logic representations by end-to-end evolving the logic relations with an edge-reasoning mechanism and updating the graph features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-04T14:38:49Z)
• A Formalisation of Abstract Argumentation in Higher-Order Logic [77.34726150561087]
  We present an approach for representing abstract argumentation frameworks based on an encoding into classical higher-order logic. This provides a uniform framework for computer-assisted assessment of abstract argumentation frameworks using interactive and automated reasoning tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T10:45:59Z)
• From LSAT: The Progress and Challenges of Complex Reasoning [56.07448735248901]
  We study the three challenging and domain-general tasks of the Law School Admission Test (LSAT), including analytical reasoning, logical reasoning and reading comprehension. We propose a hybrid reasoning system to integrate these three tasks and achieve impressive overall performance on the LSAT tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-02T05:43:03Z)
• New Algebraic Normative Theories for Ethical and Legal Reasoning in the LogiKEy Framework [0.0]
  We introduce LogiKEy methodology based on semantical embedding of deontic logics into classic higher-order logic. We considerably extend the LogiKEy deontic logics and dataset using an algebraic approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-25T16:33:07Z)
• Thinking About Causation: A Causal Language with Epistemic Operators [58.720142291102135]
  We extend the notion of a causal model with a representation of the state of an agent. On the side of the object language, we add operators to express knowledge and the act of observing new information. We provide a sound and complete axiomatization of the logic, and discuss the relation of this framework to causal team semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-30T12:16:45Z)
• Modelling Value-oriented Legal Reasoning in LogiKEy [0.0]
  We show how LogiKEy can harness interactive and automated theorem proving technology to provide a testbed for the development and formal verification of legal domain-specific languages and theories. We establish novel bridges between latest research in knowledge representation and reasoning in non-classical logics, automated theorem proving, and applications in legal reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-23T06:57:15Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.