BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Guido Governatori

Guido Governatori appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Logic in Computer ScienceArtificial IntelligenceComputational Complexitycs.CYComputation and LanguageData Structures and AlgorithmsSoftware Engineering

Catalog footprint

What is connected

11works
7topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

11 published item(s)

preprint2025arXiv

Toward Robust Legal Text Formalization into Defeasible Deontic Logic using LLMs

We present a comprehensive approach to the automated formalization of legal texts using large language models (LLMs), targeting their transformation into Defeasible Deontic Logic (DDL). Our method employs a structured pipeline that segments complex normative language into atomic snippets, extracts deontic rules, and evaluates them for syntactic and semantic coherence. We introduce a refined success metric that more precisely captures the completeness of formalizations, and a novel two-stage pipeline with a dedicated refinement step to improve logical consistency and coverage. The evaluation procedure has been strengthened with stricter error assessment, and we provide comparative results across multiple LLM configurations, including newly released models and various prompting and fine-tuning strategies. Experiments on legal norms from the Australian Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code demonstrate that, when guided effectively, LLMs can produce formalizations that align closely with expert-crafted representations, underscoring their potential for scalable legal informatics.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Avoiding Pragmatic Oddity: A Bottom-up Defeasible Deontic Logic

This paper presents an extension of Defeasible Deontic Logic to deal with the Pragmatic Oddity problem. The logic applies three general principles: (1) the Pragmatic Oddity problem must be solved within a general logical treatment of CTD reasoning; (2) non-monotonic methods must be adopted to handle CTD reasoning; (3) logical models of CTD reasoning must be computationally feasible and, if possible, efficient. The proposed extension of Defeasible Deontic Logic elaborates a preliminary version of the model proposed by Governatori and Rotolo (2019). The previous solution was based on particular characteristics of the (constructive, top-down) proof theory of the logic. However, that method introduces some degree of non-determinism. To avoid the problem, we provide a bottom-up characterisation of the logic. The new characterisation offers insights for the efficient implementation of the logic and allows us to establish the computational complexity of the problem.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Business Process Full Compliance with Respect to a Set of Conditional Obligation in Polynomial Time

In this paper, we present a new methodology to evaluate whether a business process model is fully compliant with a regulatory framework composed of a set of conditional obligations. The methodology is based failure delta-constraints that are evaluated on bottom-up aggregations of a tree-like representation of business process models. While the generic problem of proving full compliance is in coNP-complete, we show that verifying full compliance can be done in polynomial time using our methodology, for an acyclic structured process model given a regulatory framework composed by a set of conditional obligations, whose elements are restricted to be represented by propositional literals

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2017arXiv

Annotated Defeasible Logic

Defeasible logics provide several linguistic features to support the expression of defeasible knowledge. There is also a wide variety of such logics, expressing different intuitions about defeasible reasoning. However, the logics can only combine in trivial ways. This limits their usefulness in contexts where different intuitions are at play in different aspects of a problem. In particular, in some legal settings, different actors have different burdens of proof, which might be expressed as reasoning in different defeasible logics. In this paper, we introduce annotated defeasible logic as a flexible formalism permitting multiple forms of defeasibility, and establish some properties of the formalism. This paper is under consideration for acceptance in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

The Rationale behind the Concept of Goal

The paper proposes a fresh look at the concept of goal and advances that motivational attitudes like desire, goal and intention are just facets of the broader notion of (acceptable) outcome. We propose to encode the preferences of an agent as sequences of "alternative acceptable outcomes". We then study how the agent's beliefs and norms can be used to filter the mental attitudes out of the sequences of alternative acceptable outcomes. Finally, we formalise such intuitions in a novel Modal Defeasible Logic and we prove that the resulting formalisation is computationally feasible.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Computing Strong and Weak Permissions in Defeasible Logic

In this paper we propose an extension of Defeasible Logic to represent and compute three concepts of defeasible permission. In particular, we discuss different types of explicit permissive norms that work as exceptions to opposite obligations. Moreover, we show how strong permissions can be represented both with, and without introducing a new consequence relation for inferring conclusions from explicit permissive norms. Finally, we illustrate how a preference operator applicable to contrary-to-duty obligations can be combined with a new operator representing ordered sequences of strong permissions which derogate from prohibitions. The logical system is studied from a computational standpoint and is shown to have liner computational complexity.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Revision of Defeasible Logic Preferences

There are several contexts of non-monotonic reasoning where a priority between rules is established whose purpose is preventing conflicts. One formalism that has been widely employed for non-monotonic reasoning is the sceptical one known as Defeasible Logic. In Defeasible Logic the tool used for conflict resolution is a preference relation between rules, that establishes the priority among them. In this paper we investigate how to modify such a preference relation in a defeasible logic theory in order to change the conclusions of the theory itself. We argue that the approach we adopt is applicable to legal reasoning where users, in general, cannot change facts or rules, but can propose their preferences about the relative strength of the rules. We provide a comprehensive study of the possible combinatorial cases and we identify and analyse the cases where the revision process is successful. After this analysis, we identify three revision/update operators and study them against the AGM postulates for belief revision operators, to discover that only a part of these postulates are satisfied by the three operators.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2005arXiv

Embedding Defeasible Logic into Logic Programming

Defeasible reasoning is a simple but efficient approach to nonmonotonic reasoning that has recently attracted considerable interest and that has found various applications. Defeasible logic and its variants are an important family of defeasible reasoning methods. So far no relationship has been established between defeasible logic and mainstream nonmonotonic reasoning approaches. In this paper we establish close links to known semantics of logic programs. In particular, we give a translation of a defeasible theory D into a meta-program P(D). We show that under a condition of decisiveness, the defeasible consequences of D correspond exactly to the sceptical conclusions of P(D) under the stable model semantics. Without decisiveness, the result holds only in one direction (all defeasible consequences of D are included in all stable models of P(D)). If we wish a complete embedding for the general case, we need to use the Kunen semantics of P(D), instead.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access