Dov Gabbay

In the current paper we consider theories with vocabulary containing a number of binary and unary relation symbols. Binary relation symbols represent labeled edges of a graph and unary relations represent unique annotations of the graph's nodes. Such theories, which we call annotation theories^ can be used in many applications, including the formalization of argumentation, approximate reasoning, semantics of logic programs, graph coloring, etc. We address a number of problems related to annotation theories over finite models, including satisfiability, querying problem, specification of preferred models and model checking problem. We show that most of considered problems are NPTime- or co-NPTime-complete. In order to reduce the complexity for particular theories, we use second-order quantifier elimination. To our best knowledge none of existing methods works in the case of annotation theories. We then provide a new second-order quantifier elimination method for stratified theories, which is successful in the considered cases. The new result subsumes many other results, including those of [2, 28, 21]

The purpose of this paper is to communicate some developments in what we call the new logic. In a nutshell the new logic is a model of the behaviour of a logical agent. By these lights, logical theory has two principal tasks. The first is an account of what a logical agent is. The second is a description of how this behaviour is to be modelled. Before getting on with these tasks we offer a disclaimer and a warning. The disclaimer is that although the new logic is significantly different from it, we have no inclination to see the new logic as a rival of mathematical logic. We do not advocate the displacement of, e.g. model theory, but rather its supplementation or adaptation. The warning is that, whereas mathematical logic must eschew psychologism, the new logic cannot do without it. The fuller story of the new logic must eschew psychologism, the new logic cannot do without it. The fuller story of the new logic is part of our book, The Reach of Abduction, scheduled to appear in 2001 or early 2002

In this paper we show that some versions of Dung’s abstract argumentation frames are equivalent to classical propositional logic. In fact, Dung’s attack relation is none other than the generalised Peirce–Quine dagger connective of classical logic which can generate the other connectives ${\neg, \wedge, \vee, \to}$ of classical logic. After establishing the above correspondence we offer variations of the Dung argumentation frames in parallel to variations of classical logic, such as resource logics, predicate logic, etc., etc., and create resource argumentation frames, predicate argumentation frames, etc., etc. We also offer the notion of logic proof as a geometrical walk along the nodes of a Dung network and thus we are able to offer a geometrical abstraction of the notion of inference based argumentation. Thus our paper is also a contribution to the question: “What is a logical system” in as much as it integrates logic with abstract argumentation networks

This work is divided in two papers (Part I and Part II). In Part I, we introduced the class of Rare-logics for which the set of terms indexing the modal operators are hierarchized in two levels: the set of Boolean terms and the set of terms built upon the set of Boolean terms. By investigating different algebraic properties satisfied by the models of the Rare-logics, reductions for decidability were established by faithfully translating the Rare-logics into more standard modal logics (some of them contain the universal modal operator).In Part II, we push forward the results from Part I. For Rare-logics with nominals (present at the level of formulae and at the level of modal expressions), we show that the constructions from Part I can be extended although it is technically more involved. We also characterize a class of standard modal logics for which the universal modal operator can be eliminated as far as satifiability is concerned. Although the previous results have a semantic flavour, we are also able to define proof systems for Rare-logics from existing proof systems for the corresponding standard modal logics. Last, but not least, decidability results for Rare-logics are established uniformly, in particular for information logics derived from rough set theory.

Much of cognitive science seeks to provide principled descriptions of various kinds and aspects of rational behaviour, especially in beings like us or AI simulacra of beings like us. For the most part, these investigators presuppose an unarticulated common sense appreciation of the rationality that such behaviour consists in. On those occasions when they undertake to bring the relevant norms to the surface and to give an account of that to which they owe their legitimacy, these investigators tend to favour one or other of three approaches to the normativity question. They are the analyticity or truth-in-a-model approach; the pluralism approach; and the reffective equilibrium approach.All three of these approaches to the normativity question are seriously flawed, never mind that the first two have some substantial provenance among logicians and the third has enjoyed a flourishing philosophical career.Against these views, we propose a strong version of what might be called normatively immanent descriptivism. We attempt to elucidate its virtues and to deal with what appears to be its most central vulnerability, embodied in the plain fact that actual human behaviour is sometimes irrational

This paper gives a simple method for providing categorial brands of feature-based unification grammars with a model-theoretic semantics. The key idea is to apply the paradigm of fibred semantics (or layered logics, see Gabbay (1990)) in order to combine the two components of a feature-based grammar logic. We demonstrate the method for the augmentation of Lambek categorial grammar with Kasper/Rounds-style feature logic. These are combined by replacing (or annotating) atomic formulas of the first logic, i.e. the basic syntactic types, by formulas of the second. Modelling such a combined logic is less trivial than one might expect. The direct application of the fibred semantics method where a combined atomic formula like np (num: sg & pers: 3rd) denotes those strings which have the indicated property and the categorial operators denote the usual left- and right-residuals of these string sets, does not match the intuitive, unification-based proof theory. Unification implements a global bookkeeping with respect to a proof whereas the direct fibring method restricts its view to the atoms of the grammar logic. The solution is to interpret the (embedded) feature terms as global feature constraints while maintaining the same kind of fibred structures. For this adjusted semantics, the anticipated proof system is sound and complete.

We study instantiated abstract argumentation frames of the form, where is an abstract argumentation frame and where the arguments x of S are instantiated by I as well formed formulas of a well known logic, for example as Boolean formulas or as predicate logic formulas or as modal logic formulas. We use the method of conceptual analysis to derive the properties of our proposed system. We seek to define the notion of complete extensions for such systems and provide algorithms for finding such extensions. We further develop a theory of instantiation in the abstract, using the framework of Boolean attack formations and of conjunctive and disjunctive attacks. We discuss applications and compare critically with the existing related literature.

Recent years have been blessed with an abundance of logical systems, arising from a multitude of applications. A logic can be characterised in many different ways. Traditionally, a logic is presented via the following three components: 1. an intuitive non-formal motivation, perhaps tie it in to some application area 2. a semantical interpretation 3. a proof theoretical formulation. There are several types of proof theoretical methodologies, Hilbert style, Gentzen style, goal directed style, labelled deductive system style, and so on. The tableau methodology, invented in the 1950s by Beth and Hintikka and later per fected by Smullyan and Fitting, is today one of the most popular, since it appears to bring together the proof-theoretical and the semantical approaches to the pre of a logical system and is also very intuitive. In many universities it is sentation the style first taught to students. Recently interest in tableaux has become more widespread and a community crystallised around the subject. An annual tableaux conference is being held and proceedings are published. The present volume is a Handbook a/Tableaux pre senting to the community a wide coverage of tableaux systems for a variety of logics. It is written by active members of the community and brings the reader up to frontline research. It will be of interest to any formal logician from any area.

In this paper we provide a detailed proof-theoretical analysis of a natural deduction system for classical propositional logic that (i) represents classical proofs in a more natural way than standard Gentzen-style natural deduction, (ii) admits of a simple normalization procedure such that normal proofs enjoy the Weak Subformula Property, (iii) provides the means to prove a Non-contamination Property of normal proofs that is not satisfied by normal proofs in the Gentzen tradition and is useful for applications, especially in formal argumentation, (iv) naturally leads to defining a notion of depth of a proof, to the effect that, for every fixed natural k, normal k-depth deducibility is a tractable problem and converges to classical deducibility as k tends to infinity.

There is a generic way to add any new feature to a system. It involves identifying the basic units which build up the system and introducing the new feature to each of these basic units. In the case where the system is argumentation and the feature is probabilistic we have the following. The basic units are: the nature of the arguments involved; the membership relation in the set S of arguments; the attack relation; and the choice of extensions. Generically to add a new aspect to an argumentation network \ can be done by adding this feature to each component. This is a brute-force method and may yield a non-intuitive or meaningful result. A better way is to meaningfully translate the object system into another target system which does have the aspect required and then let the target system endow the aspect on the initial system. In our case we translate argumentation into classical propositional logic and get probabilistic argumentation from the translation. Of course what we get depends on how we translate. In fact, in this paper we introduce probabilistic semantics to abstract argumentation theory based on the equational approach to argumentation networks. We then compare our semantics with existing proposals in the literature including the approaches by M. Thimm and by A. Hunter. Our methodology in general is discussed in the conclusion

K. Broda, Dov M. Gabbay, Alessandra Russo and LuÍs C. Lamb argue that though the many families of logic may seem to differ in their logical nature, it is possible to provide them with a unifying logical framework whenever their semantics is axiomatizable in first-order logic. They provide such a framework based on the labeled deductive system methodology, and demonstrate how it works in such families as normal modal logics, conditional logics of normality, the modal logic of elsewhere, the multiplicative fragment of substructural linear logic, and Lukasiewicz fuzzy logic.

We are concerned with showing how ‘labelled’ Natural Deduction presentation systems based on an extension of the so-called Curry-Howard functional interpretation can help us understand and generalise most of the deduction calculi designed to deal with the logical notion of existential quantification. We present the labelling mechanism for ‘’ using what we call ‘ɛ-terms’, which have the form of ‘a’) in a dual form to the ‘Ax.f’ terms of in the sense that the ‘witness’ is chosen at the time of assertion/introduction.With the intention of demonstrating the generality of our framework, we provide a brief comparison with some other calculi of existentials, including the model-theoretic interpretations of Skolem and Herbrand, indicating the way in which some of the classical results on prenex normal forms can be extended to a wide range of logics. The essential ingredient is to look at the conceptual framework of labelled natural deduction as an attempted reconstruction of Frege's functional calculus where the devices of the Begriffsschrift work separately from, yet in harmony with, those of the Grundgesetze 1

In this paper, we introduce the methodology and techniques of meta-argumentation to model argumentation. The methodology of meta-argumentation instantiates Dung’s abstract argumentation theory with an extended argumentation theory, and is thus based on a combination of the methodology of instantiating abstract arguments, and the methodology of extending Dung’s basic argumentation frameworks with other relations among abstract arguments. The technique of meta-argumentation applies Dung’s theory of abstract argumentation to itself, by instantiating Dung’s abstract arguments with meta-arguments using a technique called flattening. We characterize the domain of instantiation using a representation technique based on soundness and completeness. Finally, we distinguish among various instantiations using the technique of specification languages.

The paper presents a compositional approach to the verification of CTL* properties over reactive systems. Both symbolic model-checking and deductive verification are considered. Both methods are based on two decomposition principles. A general state formula is decomposed into basic state formulas which are CTL* formulas with no embedded path quantifiers. To deal with arbitrary basic state formulas, we introduce another reduction principle which replaces each basic path formula, i.e., path formulas whose principal operator is temporal and which contain no embedded temporal operators or path quantifiers, by a newly introduced boolean variable which is added to the system. Thus, both the algorithmic and the deductive methods are based on two statification transformations which successively replace temporal formulas by assertions which contain no path quantifiers or temporal operators. Performing these decompositions repeatedly, we remain with basic assertional formulas, i.e., formulas of the form Efp and Afp for some assertion p. In the model-checking method we present a single symbolic algorithm to verify both universal and existential basic assertional properties. In the deductive method we present a small set of proof rules and show that this set is sound and relatively complete for verifying universal and existential basic assertional properties over reactive systems. Together with two proof rules for the decompositions, we obtain a sound and relatively complete proof system for arbitrary CTL* properties. Interestingly, the deductive approach for CTL* presented here, offers a viable new approach to the deductive verification of arbitrary LTL formulas. The paper corrects a previous preliminary version of a deductive system for CTL*, in which some of the rules were unsound. The correction is based on the introduction of a new type of temporal testers which are guaranteed to be non blocking. That is, when composed with a deadlock-free system, which is a key operation in the verification process, the resulting composed system is guaranteed to remain deadlock free