Zhe Yu

One of the key expectations of AI product manufacturers for their products is the ability to scale to larger markets, especially across legal systems, with fewer prototypes and lower adaptation costs. This paper focuses on the increasingly dynamic legal compliance challenges faced by designers of AI products in achieving this goal. Based on non-monotonic reasoning, we design an automated reasoning tool to help them better understand the legal implications of their designs in a transnational context and, ultimately, adjust the design of AI products more flexibly. This tool supports the quantitative representation of the strength of legal significance to help designers better understand the reasons for their decisions from their own perspective. To illustrate this functionality, a case study on traffic regulations across the UK, France, and Japan demonstrates the system’s ability to resolve legal conflicts—such as driving-side mandates and speed radar detector prohibitions—through quantitative evaluation.

Layered algebras are introduced and used to express layered graphs. Layered graphs are considered to be a highly effective abstract tool to manage the difficulty in conceptualizing and reasoning regarding complex systems related to coding in email exchange and access control in security. In the present paper, we study the varieties of several classes of lattice-based layer algebras and show that all these varieties have decidable equational theory via a finite model property.

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.

Autonomous vehicles, one of the signature technologies of the rapid development of artificial intelligence, have brought about a rapid change in the relevant legal norms and legal mandates. This change makes it more challenging for manufacturers and designers of autonomous vehicles to ensure the legal compliance of their product designs in a more dynamic way. Therefore, rather than approaching the issue from the perspective of judges or the cars themselves, we propose a legal reasoning system applicable to the adjustment of autonomous vehicle design options from the designer’s perspective, building on a series of previous studies. Focusing on the circulation of autonomous vehicles between different countries, the system attempts to help designers accomplish the adjustment of design solutions between different legal systems instead of designing new prototypes.

Argumentation must be conducted within specific contexts that involve particular social norms and values. For decision-making, the divergence of opinions among participants does not lie solely in disagreements of common sense and beliefs but mainly stems from differences in the priority orderings over values. In this paper, we discuss how to build consensus among participants holding different value orderings based on an extended structured argumentation framework that takes contextual factors into account. Compared with other formal systems for multi-agent reasoning based on argumentation, the context-based argumentation system especially emphasizes the dynamic nature of contexts. In addition, we refer to a pragmatic perspective to discuss how people manage to achieve the consensus they expect by changing contexts during an argument.

As AI products continue to evolve, increasingly legal problems are emerging for the engineers that design them. Current laws are often ambiguous, inconsistent or undefined when it comes to technologies that make use of AI. Engineers would benefit from decision support tools that provide engineer's with legal advice and guidance on their design decisions. This research aims at exploring a new representation of legal ontology by importing argumentation theory and constructing a trustworthy legal decision system. While the ideas are generally applicable to AI products, our initial focus has been on Autonomous Vehicles (AVs).