Marija Slavkovik’s Seminar

Our Lunch Seminar series re-starts tomorrow! We will host Marija Slavkovik (University of Bergen) who will give a talk on Machine Ethics: Introduction to the Area and Research Challenges. See below for more information and the abstract:

Speaker: Marija Slavkovik (University of Bergen), website:

Title: Machine Ethics: Introduction to the Area and Research Challenges

Abstract: The talk introduces the research area of machine ethics which tries to answer the question how to automatise moral reasoning. While trolley problems is the first thought when talking about machine ethics, subtle more every day decisions made by computational agents are the real challenge of machine ethics. Machine ethics has been established in 2006 and it is dominated by symbolic based approaches. We start by introducing AI ethics as a field in general and the place of machine ethics in it. We then consider some existing machine ethics challenges and open questions.

Zoom link: Please email for the link


Introducing LUCI

We are starting the new academic year with a bang! We have a brand new name: Logic Group Milano is now LUCI (Logic, Uncertainty, Computation and Information group). We are currently working on refreshing this website, so keep coming back for more exciting stuff!


LUCI Lunch Seminars are back!

We are delighted to announce that our series of Lunch Seminars is back! Check out the list of our invited speakers below and do not forget to follow us on social media (Twitter and Instagram) to stay up to date with our news.

Our invited speakers are:

Marija Slavkovik, University of Bergen (13 October 2021)
Riccardo Guidotti, University of Pisa (27 October 2021)
Giuseppe Sanfilippo, University of Palermo (10 November 2021)
Francesca Zaffora Blando, Carnegie Mellon University (24 Novembre 2021)
Alessandro Aldini, University of Urbino (1 December 2021)
Richard Booth, Cardiff University (15 December 2021)

All talks will take place at 1 PM CET.


AI³ Workshop 2021

We are happy to announce that our members Marcello D’Agostino, Costanza Larese and Fabio Aurelio D’Asaro are organizing the 5th Workshop on Advances in Argumentation in AI (AI³ 2021) co-located with the 20th International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence (AI*IA 2021). We invite (possibly non-original) submissions on the applications and theory of computational argumentation. For more information please take a look at the workshop’s website and the call for papers at The conference will take place in Milan on December 1st-3rd, 2021.

eventi publications

Logic Group at ISIPTA 2021

We are happy to announce that our three papers

are now available online in the Proceedings of ISIPTA 2021. Check out our Publications Page for more information.

Open position

PhD projects available

The Group is active in the Mind, Brain and Reasoning doctoral programme, which is now advertising for 4 fully funded three-year PhD scholarships. If you are interested in applying to work with us, please note that we have a list of projects for which we are offering supervision.

Open position

Postdoc in Logical Foundations of AI – Deadline 30th June 2021

The Logic Group is thrilled to advertise a postdoc position (two years, renewable) within the project “Logical Foundations of AI

The project will be developed within a research line contributing to bridging the gap between statistical methodologies at the basis of (supervised, unsupervised) Machine Learning and Logic in the development of AI. We aim to develop Logics for Reasoning under Uncertainty and with limited resources to analyse and check transparency and trustworthiness of AI systems. Properties of interest include but are not limited to: Causality, Safety and Fairness. The selected candidate will join a thriving research group based at the Department of Philosophy at the University of Milan, and will be working under the joint supervision of Marcello D’Agostino and Giuseppe Primiero.

For more information, see the Open Positions page.


Seminar Announcement (A. Aliseda)

Next week, our Logic Seminar Series continues, again as a Logic Aperitivo! 
The next talk will be given by Atocha Aliseda (UNAM) on June 3rd, starting at 18:00. Save the date and join us on Zoom!

Title: The role of Hypothesis in Medical Diagnosis: a Logical Challenge

Abstract: In this talk I will start by presenting some challenges for the formal modeling of medical diagnosis and then introduce an Adaptive Logic: LATAr, which together with a contraction procedure RETRO and a way to distinguish kinds of premises (knowledge, hypotheses, observations), serves as a formal setting for hypotheses generation and testing in the empirical sciences. In particular, LATAr serves as a model for medical reasoning in the construction of diagnoses in Neurology. As opposed to other abductive models, it considers the fact that diagnostic hypotheses are either the result of an abductive rule application or added deliberatively, the latter aiming to capture the case when a medical doctor aims at refuting a hypothesis. As any other Adaptive Logic, LATAr has a dynamic proof theory, one that allows for a line in a proof to be deleted when it is found that it no longer observes the conditions under which it was obtained in the first place. In addition, our LATAr combines deductive and abductive steps in its dynamic proofs. The research reported here was published in the Logic Journal of the IGPL 21(6): 915-913. 2013. doi:10.1093/jigpal/jzt005.

Zoom link:


Seminar Announcement (W. Holliday)

Starting from this week, our Logic Lunch Seminar Series changes its usual starting time, and turns into a Logic Aperitivo! The next talk will be given by Wesley Holliday (University of California, Berkeley) on May 20th, starting at 18:00. Save the date and join us on Zoom!

Title: Logics of Imprecise, Comparative, and Regular Probability

Abstract: In this talk, based on joint work with Yifeng Ding and Thomas Icard (at, I will discuss a logical perspective on connections between two alternatives to the standard probability calculus for representing and reasoning about uncertainty: imprecise probability and comparative probability. The goal is to identify complete logics for reasoning about uncertainty in a comparative probabilistic language whose semantics is given in terms of imprecise probability. Comparative probability operators are interpreted as quantifying over a set of probability measures. Modal and dynamic operators are added for reasoning about epistemic possibility and updating sets of probability measures. I will also discuss our work in progress on the relation between imprecise probability and the principle of regularity, according to which an agent should assign non-zero probability to any possibly true proposition.

Zoom Link: you can get the zoom link by emailing

new paper publications

Assessing the Quality of Online Reviews Using Formal Argumentation Theory

Review scores collect users’ opinions in a simple and intuitive manner. However, review scores are also easily manipulable, hence they are often accompanied by explanations. A substantial amount of research has been devoted to ascertaining the quality of reviews, to identify the most useful and authentic scores through explanation analysis. In this paper, we advance the state of the art in review quality analysis. We introduce a rating system to identify review arguments and to define an appropriate weighted semantics through formal argumentation theory. We introduce an algorithm to construct a corresponding graph, based on a selection of weighted arguments, their semantic similarity, and the supported ratings. We provide an algorithm to identify the model of such an argumentation graph, maximizing the overall weight of the admitted nodes and edges. We evaluate these contributions on the Amazon review dataset by McAuley et al. [15], by comparing the results of our argumentation assessment with the upvotes received by the reviews. Also, we deepen the evaluation by crowdsourcing a multidimensional assessment of reviews and comparing it to the argumentation assessment. Lastly, we perform a user study to evaluate the explainability of our method. Our method achieves two goals: (1) it identifies reviews that are considered useful, comprehensible, truthful by online users and does so in an unsupervised manner, and (2) it provides an explanation of quality assessments.

KEYWORDS: Formal argumentation theory, Online reviews, Information quality

Ceolin, D.; Primiero, G.; Wielemaker, J.; Soprano, M; Assessing the Quality of Online Reviews Using Formal Argumentation Theory. In: Brambilla M., Chbeir R., Frasincar F., Manolescu I. (eds) Web Engineering. ICWE 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12706. Springer, Cham.