When learning tasks over time, artificial neural networks suffer from aproblem known as Catastrophic Forgetting (CF). This happens when the weights of a network are overwritten during the training of a new task causing forgetting of oldinformation.

Massive-scale historical document collections are crucial for social science research. Despite increasing digitization, these documents typically lack unique cross-document identifiers for individuals mentioned within the texts, as well as individual identifiers from external knowledgebases like Wikipedia/Wikidata. Existing entity disambiguation methods often fall short in accuracy for historical documents, which are replete with individuals not remembered in contemporary knowledgebases. This study makes three key contributions to improve cross-document coreference resolution and disambiguation in historical texts: a massive-scale training dataset replete with hard negatives - that sources over 190 million entity pairs from Wikipedia contexts and disambiguation pages - high-quality evaluation data from hand-labeled historical newswire articles, and trained models evaluated on this historical benchmark. We contrastively train bi-encoder models for coreferencing and disambiguating individuals in historical texts, achieving accurate, scalable performance that identifies out-of-knowledgebase individuals. Our approach significantly surpasses other entity disambiguation models on our historical newswire benchmark. Our models also demonstrate competitive performance on modern entity disambiguation benchmarks, particularly certain news disambiguation datasets.

Argument graphs provide an abstract representation of an argumentative situation. A bipolar argument graph is a directed graph where each node denotes an argument, and each arc denotes the influence of one argument on another. Here we assume that the influence is supporting, attacking, or ambiguous. In a bipolar argument graph, each argument is atomic and so it has no internal structure. Yet to better understand the nature of the individual arguments, and how they interact, it is important to consider their internal structure. To address this need, this paper presents a framework based on the use of logical arguments to instantiate bipolar argument graphs, and a set of possible constraints on instantiating arguments that take into account the internal structure of the arguments, and the types of relationship between arguments.

Large Language Models are increasingly being used for various tasks including content generation and as chatbots. Despite their impressive performances in general tasks, LLMs need to be aligned when applying for domain specific tasks to mitigate the problems of hallucination and producing harmful answers. Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) allows to easily attach and manipulate a non-parametric knowledgebases to LLMs. Applications of RAG in the field of medical education are discussed in this paper. A combined extractive and abstractive summarization method for large unstructured textual data using representative vectors is proposed.

We present a novel definition of an algorithm and its corresponding algorithm language called CoLweb. The merit of CoLweb [1] is that it makes algorithm design so versatile. That is, it forces us to a high-level, proof-carrying, distributed-style approach to algorithm design for both non-distributed computing and distributed one. We argue that this approach simplifies algorithm design. In addition, it unifies other approaches including recursive logical/functional algorithms, imperative algorithms, object-oriented imperative algorithms, neural-nets, interaction nets, proof-carrying code, etc. As an application, we refine Horn clause definitions into two kinds: blind-univerally-quantified (BUQ) ones and parallel-universally-quantified (PUQ) ones. BUQ definitions corresponds to the traditional ones such as those in Prolog where knowledgebase is $not$ expanding and its proof procedure is based on the backward chaining. On the other hand, in PUQ definitions, knowledgebase is $expanding$ and its proof procedure leads to forward chaining and {\it automatic memoization}.

It is not dfficult to point out the weaknesses of neural nets and deep learning. Simply put, neural nets are too weak to support general AI. They receive inputs (numbers), perform simple arithmetic operations and produce outputs (numbers). Consequently, they provide only primitive services such as object classifications. Although object classification has some interesting applications, the power of classification is in fact not much compared to all the complex services a human can provide. Complex services - making a coffee, withdrawing money from ATM, etc - are not well supported by neural nets.

The aim of measuring inconsistency is to obtain an evaluation of the imperfections in a set of formulas, and this evaluation may then be used to help decide on some course of action (such as rejecting some of the formulas, resolving the inconsistency, seeking better sources of information, etc). A number of proposals have been made to define measures of inconsistency. Each has its rationale. But to date, it is not clear how to delineate the space of options for measures, nor is it clear how we can classify measures systematically. To address these problems, we introduce a general framework for comparing syntactic measures of inconsistency. It is based on the notion of an inconsistency graph for each knowledgebase (a bipartite graph with a set of vertices representing formulas in the knowledgebase, a set of vertices representing minimal inconsistent subsets of the knowledgebase, and edges representing that a formula belongs to a minimal inconsistent subset). We then show that various measures can be computed using the inconsistency graph. Then we introduce abstractions of the inconsistency graph and use them to construct a hierarchy of syntactic inconsistency measures. Furthermore, we extend the inconsistency graph concept with a labeling that extends the hierarchy to include some other types of inconsistency measures.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become the software equivalent of the semiconductor -ubiquitous, unseen, and capable of changing the shape of society and business. And it is embedded into increasing numbers of systems and applications in a manner that is both transparent and transformational. It's here now, and its presence is only growing. Expect AI to be embedded in systems that deal with customers, suppliers, employees, machines, transport, and every other aspect of business activity. We are not talking futures here.

Computer Vision involves getting the computer to detect or'sense' a movement, a gain, a loss or a void. A textbook definition of computer vision describes it as the ability "to make useful decisions about real physical objects and scenes based on sensed images". Machine Learning, on the other hand, consists of getting the computer to'recognize' a pattern so it can understand what is going on. Next, the pattern is matched to a pre-existing library or knowledgebase. It is at this point that machine learning takes the lead.

Argumentation is a non-monotonic process. This reflects the fact that argumentation involves uncertain information, and so new information can cause a change in the conclusions drawn. However, the base logic does not need to be non-monotonic. Indeed, most proposals for structured argumentation use a monotonic base logic (e.g. some form of modus ponens with a rule-based language, or classical logic). Nonetheless, there are issues in capturing defeasible reasoning in argumentation including choice of base logic and modelling of defeasible knowledge. And there are insights and tools to be harnessed for research in non-monontonic logics. We consider some of these issues in this paper.