In ethics, individual responsibility is often defined through Frankfurt's principle of alternative possibilities. This definition is not adequate in a group decision-making setting because it often results in the lack of a responsible party or "responsibility gap''. One of the existing approaches to address this problem is to consider group responsibility. Another, recently proposed, approach is "higher-order'' responsibility. The paper considers the problem of deciding if higher-order responsibility up to degree $d$ is enough to close the responsibility gap. The main technical result is that this problem is $Π_{2d+1}$-complete.

Trustworthy AI requires reasoning systems that are not only powerful but also transparent and reliable. Automated Theorem Proving (ATP) is central to formal reasoning, yet classical binary resolution remains limited, as each step involves only two clauses and eliminates at most two literals. To overcome this bottleneck, the concept of standard contradiction and the theory of contradiction-separation-based deduction were introduced in 2018. This paper advances that framework by focusing on the systematic construction of standard contradictions. Specially, this study investigates construction methods for two principal forms of standard contradiction: the maximum triangular standard contradiction and the triangular-type standard contradiction. Building on these structures, we propose a procedure for determining the satisfiability and unsatisfiability of clause sets via maximum standard contradiction. Furthermore, we derive formulas for computing the number of standard sub-contradictions embedded within both the maximum triangular standard contradiction and the triangular-type standard contradiction. The results presented herein furnish the methodological basis for advancing contradiction-separation-based dynamic multi-clause automated deduction, thereby extending the expressive and deductive capabilities of automated reasoning systems beyond the classical binary paradigm.

The technique of forgetting in knowledge representation has been shown to be a powerful and useful knowledge engineering tool with widespread application. Yet, very little research has been done on how different policies of forgetting, or use of different forgetting operators, affects the inferential strength of the original theory. The goal of this paper is to define loss functions for measuring changes in inferential strength based on intuitions from model counting and probability theory. Properties of such loss measures are studied and a pragmatic knowledge engineering tool is proposed for computing loss measures using Problog. The paper includes a working methodology for studying and determining the strength of different forgetting policies, in addition to concrete examples showing how to apply the theoretical results using Problog. Although the focus is on forgetting, the results are much more general and should have wider application to other areas.

The rise of AI-based and autonomous systems is raising concerns and apprehension due to potential negative repercussions stemming from their behavior or decisions. These systems must be designed to comply with the human contexts in which they will operate. To this extent, Townsend et al. (2022) introduce the concept of SLEEC (social, legal, ethical, empathetic, or cultural) rules that aim to facilitate the formulation, verification, and enforcement of the rules AI-based and autonomous systems should obey. They lay out a methodology to elicit them and to let philosophers, lawyers, domain experts, and others to formulate them in natural language. To enable their effective use in AI systems, it is necessary to translate these rules systematically into a formal language that supports automated reasoning. In this study, we first conduct a linguistic analysis of the SLEEC rules pattern, which justifies the translation of SLEEC rules into classical logic. Then we investigate the computational complexity of reasoning about SLEEC rules and show how logical programming frameworks can be employed to implement SLEEC rules in practical scenarios. The result is a readily applicable strategy for implementing AI systems that conform to norms expressed as SLEEC rules.

We outline how to create a mechanism that provides an optimal way to elicit, from an arbitrary group of experts, the probability of the truth of an arbitrary logical proposition together with collective information that has an explicit form and interprets this probability. Namely, we provide strong arguments for the possibility of the development of a self-resolving prediction market with play money that incentivizes direct information exchange between experts. Such a system could, in particular, motivate simultaneously many experts to collectively solve scientific or medical problems in a very efficient manner. We also note that in our considerations, experts are not assumed to be Bayesian.

Studying the definability (expressibility) of logical connectives in terms of one another has a long history in logic. Proving the definability of one connective through another is usually done by providing an explicit formula that expresses one connective through others. Once such a formula is found, proving definability is usually a straightforward exercise. Proving undefinability is significantly harder and usually requires sophisticated techniques. Different domain-specific techniques have been proposed for various logical systems. Among them, the best-known is the bisimulation method for modal logics [19, 1, 2, 5, 15, 18, 4, 17, 16]. It is not clear how bisimulation can be applied to non-modal logics where completely different methods have been proposed [13, 20].

We consider the problem of explaining the temporal behavior of black-box systems using human-interpretable models. To this end, based on recent research trends, we rely on the fundamental yet interpretable models of deterministic finite automata (DFAs) and linear temporal logic (LTL) formulas. In contrast to most existing works for learning DFAs and LTL formulas, we rely on only positive examples. Our motivation is that negative examples are generally difficult to observe, in particular, from black-box systems. To learn meaningful models from positive examples only, we design algorithms that rely on conciseness and language minimality of models as regularizers. To this end, our algorithms adopt two approaches: a symbolic and a counterexample-guided one. While the symbolic approach exploits an efficient encoding of language minimality as a constraint satisfaction problem, the counterexample-guided one relies on generating suitable negative examples to prune the search. Both the approaches provide us with effective algorithms with theoretical guarantees on the learned models. To assess the effectiveness of our algorithms, we evaluate all of them on synthetic data.

Linear-time temporal logic on finite traces (LTLf) is rapidly becoming a de-facto standard to produce specifications in many application domains (e.g., planning, business process management, run-time monitoring, reactive synthesis). Several studies approached the respective satisfiability problem. In this paper, we investigate the problem of extracting the unsatisfiable core in LTLf specifications. We provide four algorithms for extracting an unsatisfiable core leveraging the adaptation of state-of-the-art approaches to LTLf satisfiability checking. We implement the different approaches within the respective tools and carry out an experimental evaluation on a set of reference benchmarks, restricting to the unsatisfiable ones. The results show the feasibility, effectiveness, and complementarities of the different algorithms and tools.

We provide a logical analysis of abstract argumentation frameworks and their dynamics. Following previous work, we express attack relation and argument status by means of propositional variables and define acceptability criteria by formulas of propositional logic. We here study the dynamics of argumentation frameworks in terms of basic operations on these propositional variables, viz.

Abstract reasoning, i.e., inferring complicated patterns from given observations, is a central building block of artificial general intelligence. While humans find the answer by either eliminating wrong candidates or first constructing the answer, prior deep neural network (DNN)-based methods focus on the former discriminative approach. This paper aims to design a framework for the latter approach and bridge the gap between artificial and human intelligence. To this end, we propose logic-guided generation (LoGe), a novel generative DNN framework that reduces abstract reasoning as an optimization problem in propositional logic. LoGe is composed of three steps: extract propositional variables from images, reason the answer variables with a logic layer, and reconstruct the answer image from the variables. We demonstrate that LoGe outperforms the black box DNN frameworks for generative abstract reasoning under the RAVEN benchmark, i.e., reconstructing answers based on capturing correct rules of various attributes from observations.