Cross-Border Legal Adaptation of Autonomous Vehicle Design based on Logic and Non-monotonic Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.22432v1
• Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 07:24:15 GMT
• Title: Cross-Border Legal Adaptation of Autonomous Vehicle Design based on Logic and Non-monotonic Reasoning
• Authors: Zhe Yu, Yiwei Lu, Burkhard Schafer, Zhe Lin,
• Abstract summary: We choose the perspective of designers and try to provide supporting legal reasoning in the design process.<n>Based on argumentation theory, we introduce a logic to represent the basic properties of argument-based practical (normative) reasoning.<n>We show how the reasoning system we provide can help designers to adapt their design solutions more flexibly in the cross-border application of autonomous vehicles.
• Score: 19.097291599358574
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This paper focuses on the legal compliance challenges of autonomous vehicles in a transnational context. We choose the perspective of designers and try to provide supporting legal reasoning in the design process. Based on argumentation theory, we introduce a logic to represent the basic properties of argument-based practical (normative) reasoning, combined with partial order sets of natural numbers to express priority. Finally, through case analysis of legal texts, we show how the reasoning system we provide can help designers to adapt their design solutions more flexibly in the cross-border application of autonomous vehicles and to more easily understand the legal implications of their decisions.

Related papers

• A Law Reasoning Benchmark for LLM with Tree-Organized Structures including Factum Probandum, Evidence and Experiences [76.73731245899454]
  We propose a transparent law reasoning schema enriched with hierarchical factum probandum, evidence, and implicit experience.<n>Inspired by this schema, we introduce the challenging task, which takes a textual case description and outputs a hierarchical structure justifying the final decision.<n>This benchmark paves the way for transparent and accountable AI-assisted law reasoning in the Intelligent Court''
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-02T10:26:54Z)
• Explaining Non-monotonic Normative Reasoning using Argumentation Theory with Deontic Logic [7.162465547358201]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-18T08:03:29Z)
• Logic Agent: Enhancing Validity with Logic Rule Invocation [24.815341366820753]
  Chain-of-Thought prompting has emerged as a pivotal technique for augmenting the inferential capabilities of language models during reasoning tasks.<n>This paper introduces the Logic Agent (LA), an agent-based framework aimed at enhancing the validity of reasoning processes in Large Language Models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-28T10:02:28Z)
• Automated legal reasoning with discretion to act using s(LAW) [0.294944680995069]
  ethical and legal concerns make it necessary for automated reasoners to justify in human-understandable terms. We propose to use s(CASP), a top-down execution model for predicate ASP, to model vague concepts following a set of patterns. We have implemented a framework, called s(LAW), to model, reason, and justify the applicable legislation and validate it by translating (and benchmarking) a representative use case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-25T21:11:08Z)
• Language Models can be Logical Solvers [99.40649402395725]
  We introduce LoGiPT, a novel language model that directly emulates the reasoning processes of logical solvers. LoGiPT is fine-tuned on a newly constructed instruction-tuning dataset derived from revealing and refining the invisible reasoning process of deductive solvers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-10T16:23:50Z)
• Bridging between LegalRuleML and TPTP for Automated Normative Reasoning (extended version) [77.34726150561087]
  LegalRuleML is an XML-based representation framework for modeling and exchanging normative rules. The TPTP input and output formats are general-purpose standards for the interaction with automated reasoning systems. We provide a bridge between the two communities by defining a logic-pluralistic normative reasoning language based on the TPTP format.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-12T08:42:34Z)
• 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)
• Factoring Statutory Reasoning as Language Understanding Challenges [48.13180364616141]
  We decompose statutory reasoning into four types of language-understanding challenge problems. We introduce concepts and structure found in Prolog programs. Models for statutory reasoning are shown to benefit from the additional structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-17T14:33:02Z)
• A Dataset for Statutory Reasoning in Tax Law Entailment and Question Answering [37.66486350122862]
  This paper investigates the performance of natural language understanding approaches on statutory reasoning. We introduce a dataset, together with a legal-domain text corpus. We contrast this with a hand-constructed Prolog-based system, designed to fully solve the task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-11T16:54:42Z)

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.