Albert Sadowski

Albert Sadowski, Jarosław A. Chudziak

The same arguments often need to be evaluated under different external regimes. An agent with influence over the regime has a strategic lever that standard formalisms do not directly capture. We introduce context-dependent argumentation frameworks (CDAFs), an extension of Dung's theory in which a defeat function determines, per context, which attacks succeed. A perspective-labeled specialisation derives the defeat function from a relevance set $ρ$ and a priority $π$. The relevance set is the agent's action space. In a small worked example, the agent's target argument is rejected under every full-relevance injective priority, yet accepted under partial activations, one of which no VAF audience can mirror. We define the corresponding decision problem, ACTIVATION-MANIPULATION, and record baseline complexity bounds. Tight bounds and multi-agent variants are left open.

Albert Sadowski, Jarosław A. Chudziak

AI agents operating over extended time horizons accumulate experiences that serve multiple concurrent goals, and must often maintain conflicting interpretations of the same events. A concession during a client negotiation encodes as a ``trust-building investment'' for one strategic goal and a ``contractual liability'' for another. Current memory architectures assume a single correct encoding, or at best support multiple views over unified storage. We propose Rashomon Memory: an architecture where parallel goal-conditioned agents encode experiences according to their priorities and negotiate at query time through argumentation. Each perspective maintains its own ontology and knowledge graph. At retrieval, perspectives propose interpretations, critique each other's proposals using asymmetric domain knowledge, and Dung's argumentation semantics determines which proposals survive. The resulting attack graph is itself an explanation: it records which interpretation was selected, which alternatives were considered, and on what grounds they were rejected. We present a proof-of-concept showing that retrieval modes (selection, composition, conflict surfacing) emerge from attack graph topology, and that the conflict surfacing mode, where the system reports genuine disagreement rather than forcing resolution, lets decision-makers see the underlying interpretive conflict directly.

Albert Sadowski, Jarosław A. Chudziak

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in complex reasoning tasks but struggle with consistent rule application, exception handling, and explainability, particularly in domains like legal analysis that require both natural language understanding and precise logical inference. This paper introduces a structured prompting framework that decomposes reasoning into three verifiable steps: entity identification, property extraction, and symbolic rule application. By integrating neural and symbolic approaches, our method leverages LLMs' interpretive flexibility while ensuring logical consistency through formal verification. The framework externalizes task definitions, enabling domain experts to refine logical structures without altering the architecture. Evaluated on the LegalBench hearsay determination task, our approach significantly outperformed baselines, with OpenAI o-family models showing substantial improvements - o1 achieving an F1 score of 0.929 and o3-mini reaching 0.867 using structured decomposition with complementary predicates, compared to their few-shot baselines of 0.714 and 0.74 respectively. This hybrid neural-symbolic system offers a promising pathway for transparent and consistent rule-based reasoning, suggesting potential for explainable AI applications in structured legal reasoning tasks.

Albert Sadowski, Jarosław A. Chudziak

Rule-based reasoning over natural language input arises in domains where decisions must be auditable and justifiable: clinical protocols specify eligibility criteria in prose, evidence rules define admissibility through textual conditions, and scientific standards dictate methodological requirements. Applying rules to such inputs demands both interpretive flexibility and formal guarantees. Large language models (LLMs) provide flexibility but cannot ensure consistent rule application; symbolic systems provide guarantees but require structured input. This paper presents an integration pattern that combines these strengths: LLMs serve as ontology population engines, translating unstructured text into ABox assertions according to expert-authored TBox specifications, while SWRL-based reasoners apply rules with deterministic guarantees. The framework decomposes reasoning into entity identification, assertion extraction, and symbolic verification, with task definitions grounded in OWL 2 ontologies. Experiments across three domains (legal hearsay determination, scientific method-task application, clinical trial eligibility) and eleven language models validate the approach. Structured decomposition achieves statistically significant improvements over few-shot prompting in aggregate, with gains observed across all three domains. An ablation study confirms that symbolic verification provides substantial benefit beyond structured prompting alone. The populated ABox integrates with standard semantic web tooling for inspection and querying, positioning the framework for richer inference patterns that simpler formalisms cannot express.

Albert Sadowski, Jarosław A. Chudziak

Legal reasoning requires both precise interpretation of statutory language and consistent application of complex rules, presenting significant challenges for AI systems. This paper introduces a modular multi-agent framework that decomposes legal reasoning into distinct knowledge acquisition and application stages. In the first stage, specialized agents extract legal concepts and formalize rules to create verifiable intermediate representations of statutes. The second stage applies this knowledge to specific cases through three steps: analyzing queries to map case facts onto the ontology schema, performing symbolic inference to derive logically entailed conclusions, and generating final answers using a programmatic implementation that operationalizes the ontological knowledge. This bridging of natural language understanding with symbolic reasoning provides explicit and verifiable inspection points, significantly enhancing transparency compared to end-to-end approaches. Evaluation on statutory tax calculation tasks demonstrates substantial improvements, with foundational models achieving 76.4\% accuracy compared to 18.8\% baseline performance, effectively narrowing the performance gap between reasoning and foundational models. These findings suggest that modular architectures with formalized knowledge representations can make sophisticated legal reasoning more accessible through computationally efficient models while enhancing consistency and explainability in AI legal reasoning, establishing a foundation for future research into more transparent, trustworthy, and effective AI systems for legal domain.