Reinforcement Learning is a machine learning methodology that has demonstrated strong performance across a variety of tasks. In particular, it plays a central role in the development of artificial autonomous agents. As these agents become increasingly capable, market readiness is rapidly approaching, which means those agents, for example taking the form of humanoid robots or autonomous cars, are poised to transition from laboratory prototypes to autonomous operation in real-world environments. This transition raises concerns leading to specific requirements for these systems - among them, the requirement that they are designed to behave ethically. Crucially, research directed toward building agents that fulfill the requirement to behave ethically - referred to as artificial moral agents(AMAs) - has to address a range of challenges at the intersection of computer science and philosophy. This study explores the development of reason-based artificial moral agents (RBAMAs). RBAMAs are build on an extension of the reinforcement learning architecture to enable moral decision-making based on sound normative reasoning, which is achieved by equipping the agent with the capacity to learn a reason-theory - a theory which enables it to process morally relevant propositions to derive moral obligations - through case-based feedback. They are designed such that they adapt their behavior to ensure conformance to these obligations while they pursue their designated tasks. These features contribute to the moral justifiability of the their actions, their moral robustness, and their moral trustworthiness, which proposes the extended architecture as a concrete and deployable framework for the development of AMAs that fulfills key ethical desiderata. This study presents a first implementation of an RBAMA and demonstrates the potential of RBAMAs in initial experiments.

We propose an extension of the reinforcement learning architecture that enables moral decision-making of reinforcement learning agents based on normative reasons. Central to this approach is a reason-based shield generator yielding a moral shield that binds the agent to actions that conform with recognized normative reasons so that our overall architecture restricts the agent to actions that are (internally) morally justified. In addition, we describe an algorithm that allows to iteratively improve the reason-based shield generator through case-based feedback from a moral judge.

Humans tell stories to make sense of the world and communicate their understanding of what happens. Storytelling supposes to be able to sort out which events are worth telling, deciding on a level of detail for describing events, selecting among possible causes the ones which are deemed worth telling. It also supposes to make use of an affective machinery for capturing an audience's attention (emotional contagion, suspense elicitation...). In the act of storytelling, structural and affective phenomena are thus combined with communicative goals in mind. This combination has indeed shown its effectiveness in this respect: the phenomenon of narrative transportation (the experience of being immersed in a story) has been linked to persuasion [27]. The narrative paradigm therefore provides an appropriate framework, in which causal reasoning about the situations narrated [53] is combined with narrative devices to encourage the audience's emotional involvement [51], to study and model how opinion is formed and evolves. Building a framework for reasoning about and unveiling storytelling mechanics could pave the way for intellectual selfdefense supporting tools, enabling citizens to arm themselves against hostile disinformation or influence campaigns. Previous works in structural narratology have studied the way stories are conveyed to their audience and seminal work from (for instance) Genette [25] or Propp [45] have previously served as the backbone inspiration for computational narrative models and storytelling systems [43].

Argument mining is natural language processing technology aimed at identifying arguments in text. Furthermore, the approach is being developed to identify the premises and claims of those arguments, and to identify the relationships between arguments including support and attack relationships. In this paper, we assume that an argument map contains the premises and claims of arguments, and support and attack relationships between them, that have been identified by argument mining. So from a piece of text, we assume an argument map is obtained automatically by natural language processing. However, to understand and to automatically analyse that argument map, it would be desirable to instantiate that argument map with logical arguments. Once we have the logical representation of the arguments in an argument map, we can use automated reasoning to analyze the argumentation (e.g. check consistency of premises, check validity of claims, and check the labelling on each arc corresponds with thw logical arguments). We address this need by using classical logic for representing the explicit information in the text, and using default logic for representing the implicit information in the text. In order to investigate our proposal, we consider some specific options for instantiation.

Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning where some generalisations may not be valid in all circumstances, that is general conclusions may fail in some cases. Various formalisms have been developed to model this kind of reasoning, which is characteristic of common-sense contexts. However, it is not easy for a modeller to choose among these systems the one that better fits its domain from an ontological point of view. In this paper we first propose a framework based on the notions of exceptionality and defeasibility in order to be able to compare formalisms and reveal their ontological commitments. Then, we apply this framework to compare four systems, showing the differences that may occur from an ontological perspective.

Even if much has been written about ingredients that trigger laughter, researchers are still far from having completely understood their interplay in the cognitive process that leads a listener to guffaw at a pun or a joke. They are even farther from a detailed analysis and modeling of the mechanisms that are at work in this process. However, in recent articles Dupin de Saint-Cyr and Prade (2020, 2022) took a first step in this direction by laying bare that a belief revision mechanism was solicited in the reception of a narrative joke. Namely the punchline, which triggers a revision, is both surprising and explains perfectly what was reported in the beginning of the joke. A similar idea has been more informally proposed in Ritchie (2002). It is quite clear that this is insufficient for characterizing a narrative joke.

We present FOLD-SE, an efficient, explainable machine learning algorithm for classification tasks given tabular data containing numerical and categorical values. FOLD-SE generates a set of default rules-essentially a stratified normal logic program-as an (explainable) trained model. Explainability provided by FOLD-SE is scalable, meaning that regardless of the size of the dataset, the number of learned rules and learned literals stay quite small while good accuracy in classification is maintained. A model with smaller number of rules and literals is easier to understand for human beings. FOLD-SE is competitive with state-of-the-art machine learning algorithms such as XGBoost and Multi-Layer Perceptrons (MLP) wrt accuracy of prediction. However, unlike XGBoost and MLP, the FOLD-SE algorithm is explainable. The FOLD-SE algorithm builds upon our earlier work on developing the explainable FOLD-R++ machine learning algorithm for binary classification and inherits all of its positive features. Thus, pre-processing of the dataset, using techniques such as one-hot encoding, is not needed. Like FOLD-R++, FOLD-SE uses prefix sum to speed up computations resulting in FOLD-SE being an order of magnitude faster than XGBoost and MLP in execution speed. The FOLD-SE algorithm outperforms FOLD-R++ as well as other rule-learning algorithms such as RIPPER in efficiency, performance and scalability, especially for large datasets. A major reason for scalable explainability of FOLD-SE is the use of a literal selection heuristics based on Gini Impurity, as opposed to Information Gain used in FOLD-R++. A multi-category classification version of FOLD-SE is also presented.

Argument systems are based on the idea that one can construct arguments for propositions; i.e., structured reasons justifying the belief in a proposition. Using defeasible rules, arguments need not be valid in all circumstances, therefore, it might be possible to construct an argument for a proposition as well as its negation. When arguments support conflicting propositions, one of the arguments must be defeated, which raises the question of \emph{which (sub-)arguments can be subject to defeat}? In legal argumentation, meta-rules determine the valid arguments by considering the last defeasible rule of each argument involved in a conflict. Since it is easier to evaluate arguments using their last rules, \emph{can a conflict be resolved by considering only the last defeasible rules of the arguments involved}? We propose a new argument system where, instead of deriving a defeat relation between arguments, \emph{undercutting-arguments} for the defeat of defeasible rules are constructed. This system allows us, (\textit{i}) to resolve conflicts (a generalization of rebutting arguments) using only the last rules of the arguments for inconsistencies, (\textit{ii}) to determine a set of valid (undefeated) arguments in linear time using an algorithm based on a JTMS, (\textit{iii}) to establish a relation with Default Logic, and (\textit{iv}) to prove closure properties such as \emph{cumulativity}. We also propose an extension of the argument system that enables \emph{reasoning by cases}.

Driving an automobile involves the tasks of observing surroundings, then making a driving decision based on these observations (steer, brake, coast, etc.). In autonomous driving, all these tasks have to be automated. Autonomous driving technology thus far has relied primarily on machine learning techniques. We argue that appropriate technology should be used for the appropriate task. That is, while machine learning technology is good for observing and automatically understanding the surroundings of an automobile, driving decisions are better automated via commonsense reasoning rather than machine learning. In this paper, we discuss (i) how commonsense reasoning can be automated using answer set programming (ASP) and the goal-directed s(CASP) ASP system, and (ii) develop the AUTO-DISCERN system using this technology for automating decision-making in driving. The goal of our research, described in this paper, is to develop an autonomous driving system that works by simulating the mind of a human driver. Since driving decisions are based on human-style reasoning, they are explainable, their ethics can be ensured, and they will always be correct, provided the system modeling and system inputs are correct.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is sweeping through industries ranging from cybersecurity to environmental protection -- and the Covid-19 pandemic has only accelerated this trend. AI may improve the lives of millions, but it also will inevitably cause accidents that injure people or parties -- indeed, it already has through incidents like autonomous vehicle crashes. An outdated liability system in the United States and other countries, however, is unable to manage these risks, which is a problem because those risks can impede AI innovations and adoption. Therefore, it is crucial that we reform the liability system. Doing so will help speed AI innovations and adoption.