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.

Amazon sells nearly everything under the sun, but the e-commerce giant has strict rules on what items customers can return. The policy's fine print shows that software downloads, video games and gift cards cannot be returned for a refund. While these sound reasonable, Amazon also clarifies that it will not take back live cockroaches, pet food and theme park tickets - so be sure you are committed to these purchases. You bought new photo editing software but never opened the box. Good news: You can return it within 30 days of purchase.

MOST LAWS are local--except in the digital realm. When the European Union comes up with some new tech regulation, it can quickly spread around the world. Global companies adopt its typically strict rules for all their products and markets in order to avoid having to comply with multiple regimes. Other governments take more than one page from the EU's rule book to help local firms compete. The textbook example for what has been dubbed the "Brussels effect", is the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which went into force in 2018 and swiftly became the global standard. Your browser does not support the audio element.

In ASPIC-style structured argumentation an argument can rebut another argument by attacking its conclusion. Two ways of formalizing rebuttal have been proposed: In restricted rebuttal, the attacked conclusion must have been arrived at with a defeasible rule, whereas in unrestricted rebuttal, it may have been arrived at with a strict rule, as long as at least one of the antecedents of this strict rule was already defeasible. One systematic way of choosing between various possible definitions of a framework for structured argumentation is to study what rationality postulates are satisfied by which definition, for example whether the closure postulate holds, i.e. whether the accepted conclusions are closed under strict rules. While having some benefits, the proposal to use unrestricted rebuttal faces the problem that the closure postulate only holds for the grounded semantics but fails when other argumentation semantics are applied, whereas with restricted rebuttal the closure postulate always holds. In this paper we propose that ASPIC-style argumentation can benefit from keeping track not only of the attack relation between arguments, but also the relation of deductive joint support that holds between a set of arguments and an argument that was constructed from that set using a strict rule. By taking this deductive joint support relation into account while determining the extensions, the closure postulate holds with unrestricted rebuttal under all admissibility-based semantics. We define the semantics of deductive joint support through the flattening method.

This paper formally compares some central notions from two well-known formalisms for rule-based argumentation, DeLP and ASPIC+. The comparisons especially focus on intuitive adequacy and inter-translatability, consistency, and closure properties. As for differences in the definitions of arguments and attack, it turns out that DeLP's definitions are intuitively appealing but that they may not fully comply with Caminada and Amgoud's rationality postulates of strict closure and indirect consistency. For some special cases, the DeLP definitions are shown to fare better than ASPIC+. Next, it is argued that there are reasons to consider a variant of DeLP with grounded semantics, since in some examples its current notion of warrant arguably has counterintuitive consequences and may lead to sets of warranted arguments that are not admissible. Finally, under some minimality and consistency assumptions on ASPIC+ arguments, a one-to-many correspondence between ASPIC+ arguments and DeLP arguments is identified in such a way that if the DeLP warranting procedure is changed to grounded semantics, then DeLP notion of warrant and ASPIC+'s notion of justification are equivalent. This result is proven for three alternative definitions of attack.

It's Canada's turn to implement rules for drone flights, and those in the pipeline could make the American approach seem lenient. Transport Canada has adopted new regulations that will require the registration of any drone weighing between 250g and 25kg (0.55lbs to 55lbs), and would-be pilots will have to be at least 14 years old and either a citizen or permanent resident. You'll also have to obtain a pilot's certificate, which entails an online exam for basic (general use) flights. Advanced drone operators, those who want to fly in controlled airspace or around bystanders, have to both take an exam and pass a flight review. Some of the rules will sound familiar to those south of the Canadian border.

We present an approach to reasoning with strict and defeasible rules over literals. A controlled natural language is employed as human/machine interface to facilitate the specification of knowledge and verbalization of results. Reasoning on the rules is done by a direct semantics that addresses several issues for current approaches to argumentation-based defeasible reasoning. Techniques from formal argumentation theory are employed to justify conclusions of the approach; therefore, we not only address automated reasoning but also human acceptance of provided conclusions.

This paper studies two issues concerning relevance in structured argumentation in the context of the ASPIC framework, arising from the combined use of strict and defeasible inference rules. One issue arises if the strict inference rules correspond to classical logic. A longstanding problem is how the trivialising effect of the classical Ex Falso principle can be avoided while satisfying consistency and closure postulates. In this paper, this problem is solved by disallowing chaining of strict rules, resulting in a variant of the ASPIC framework called ASPIC*, and then disallowing the application of strict rules to inconsistent sets of formulas. Another issue is minimality of arguments.

This paper studies two issues concerning relevance in structured argumentation in the context of the ASPIC+ framework, arising from the combined use of strict and defeasible inference rules. One issue arises if the strict inference rules correspond to classical logic. A longstanding problem is how the trivialising effect of the classical Ex Falso principle can be avoided while satisfying consistency and closure postulates. In this paper, this problem is solved by disallowing chaining of strict rules, resulting in a variant of the ASPIC+ framework called ASPIC*, and then disallowing the application of strict rules to inconsistent sets of formulas. Thus in effect Rescher & Manor's paraconsistent notion of weak consequence is embedded in ASPIC*. Another issue is minimality of arguments. If arguments can apply defeasible inference rules, then they cannot be required to have subset-minimal premises, since defeasible rules based on more information may well make an argument stronger. In this paper instead minimality is required of applications of strict rules throughout an argument. It is shown that under some plausible assumptions this does not affect the set of conclusions. In addition, circular arguments are in the new ASPIC* framework excluded in a way that satisfies closure and consistency postulates and that generates finitary argumentation frameworks if the knowledge base and set of defeasible rules are finite. For the latter result the exclusion of chaining of strict rules is essential. Finally, the combined results of this paper are shown to be a proper extension of classical-logic argumentation with preferences and defeasible rules.

A major challenge in cyber-threat analysis is combining information from different sources to find the person or the group responsible for the cyber-attack. It is one of the most important technical and policy challenges in cyber-security. The lack of ground truth for an individual responsible for an attack has limited previous studies. In this paper, we overcome this limitation by building a dataset from the capture-the-flag event held at DEFCON, and propose an argumentation model based on a formal reasoning framework called DeLP (Defeasible Logic Programming) designed to aid an analyst in attributing a cyber-attack to an attacker. We build argumentation-based models from latent variables computed from the dataset to reduce the search space of culprits (attackers) that an analyst can use to identify the attacker. We show that reducing the search space in this manner significantly improves the performance of classification-based approaches to cyber-attribution.