Argument-based inductive logics, with coverage of compromised perception.

Formal deductive logic, used to express and reason over declarative, axiomatizable content, captures, we now know, essentially all of what is known in mathematics and physics, and captures as well the details of the proofs by which such knowledge has been secured. This is certainly impressive, but deductive logic alone cannot enable rational adjudication of arguments that are at variance (however much additional information is added). After affirming a fundamental directive, according to which argumentation should be the basis for human-centric AI, we introduce and employ both a deductive and-crucially-an inductive cognitive calculus. The former cognitive calculus, DCEC, is the deductive one and is used with our automated deductive reasoner ShadowProver; the latter, IDCEC, is inductive, is used with the automated inductive reasoner ShadowAdjudicator, and is based on human-used concepts of likelihood (and in some dialects of IDCEC, probability). We explain that ShadowAdjudicator centers around the concept of competing and nuanced arguments adjudicated non-monotonically through time. We make things clearer and more concrete by way of three case studies, in which our two automated reasoners are employed. Case Study 1 involves the famous Monty Hall Problem. Case Study 2 makes vivid the efficacy of our calculi and automated reasoners in simulations that involve a cognitive robot (PERI.2). In Case Study 3, as we explain, the simulation employs the cognitive architecture ARCADIA, which is designed to computationally model human-level cognition in ways that take perception and attention seriously. We also discuss a type of argument rarely analyzed in logic-based AI; arguments intended to persuade by leveraging human deficiencies. We end by sharing thoughts about the future of research and associated engineering of the type that we have displayed.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis accessibility research and evaluation (PrEPARE Study).

Tenofovir-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC) has demonstrated effectiveness as HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), but it is not commonly prescribed. Our study was designed to determine the barriers preventing utilization of PrEP among men who have sex with men (MSM), the group at greatest risk for HIV infection in the United States. A population-based sample of MSM presenting for HIV testing at 'Early Test' HIV testing and counseling sites in San Diego, California were offered PrEP and education about potential efficacy. Eligible individuals reported having unprotected sex within the past 12 months and who tested negative for HIV were offered study participation. Despite offering procedures for evaluation and prescription for PrEP to 416 eligible subjects, less than 0.5 % of participants received the drug. Surveys collected from 54 of those who declined study participation revealed multiple barriers to PrEP among MSM including cost, low perceived risk of infection and concerns about taking a daily medication and potential long-term side effects. Efforts should be made to address these barriers, especially lowering the cost of TDF-FTC, education about PrEP side effects and awareness of HIV risks.