Related papers: Subset models for justification logic
Subset models provide a new semantics for justifcation logic. The main idea of subset models is that evidence terms are interpreted as sets of possible worlds. A term then justifies a formula if that formula is true in each world of the…
The purpose of this paper is to introduce justification logics based on conditional logics. We introduce a new family of logics, called conditional justification logics, which incorporates a counterfactual conditional in its language. For…
In traditional justification logic, evidence terms have the syntactic form of polynomials, but they are not equipped with the corresponding algebraic structure. We present a novel semantic approach to justification logic that models…
Justification theory is a unifying framework for semantics of non-monotonic logics. It is built on the notion of a justification, which intuitively is a graph that explains the truth value of certain facts in a structure. Knowledge…
We study abstract intermediate justification logics, that is arbitrary intermediate propositional logics extended with a subset of specific axioms of (classical) justification logics. For these, we introduce various semantics by combining…
Applying automated reasoning tools for decision support and analysis in law has the potential to make court decisions more transparent and objective. Since there is often uncertainty about the accuracy and relevance of evidence,…
Recent authors have proposed analyzing conditional reasoning through a notion of intervention on a simulation program, and have found a sound and complete axiomatization of the logic of conditionals in this setting. Here we extend this…
Justification Logics provide a framework for reasoning about justifications and evidences. Most of the accounts of justification logics are crisp in the sense that agent's justifications for a statement is convincing or is not. In this…
Justification logics are modal-like logics with the additional capability of recording the reason, or justification, for modalities in syntactic structures, called justification terms. Justification logics can be seen as explicit…
Justification theory is a general framework for the definition of semantics of rule-based languages that has a high explanatory potential. Nested justification systems, first introduced by Denecker et al. (2015), allow for the composition…
Justification logics are modal-like logics with the additional capability of recording the reason, or justification, for modalities in syntactic structures, called justification terms. Justification logics can be seen as explicit…
We propose a novel ranking-based semantics for Dung-style argumentation frameworks with the help of conditional logics. Using an intuitive translation for an argumentation framework to generate conditionals, we can apply nonmonotonic…
Sub-sub-intuitionistic logic is obtained from intuitionistic logic by weakening the implication and removing distributivity. It can alternatively be viewed as conditional weak positive logic. We provide semantics for sub-sub-intuitionistic…
In this paper, we propose a fresh perspective on argumentation semantics, to view them as a relational database. It offers encapsulation of the underlying argumentation graph, and allows us to understand argumentation semantics under a…
Justification logics are modal-like logics that provide a framework for reasoning about justifications. This paper introduces labeled sequent calculi for justification logics, as well as for hybrid modal-justification logics. Using the…
Probabilistic justification logic is a modal logic with two kind of modalities: probability measures and explicit justification terms. We present a tableau procedure that can be used to decide the satisfiability problem for this logic in…
In this paper, we introduce a new family of argument-ranking semantics which can be seen as a refinement of the classification of arguments into skeptically accepted, credulously accepted and rejected. To this end we use so-called social…
This paper introduces epistemic graphs as a generalization of the epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation. In these graphs, an argument can be believed or disbelieved up to a given degree, thus providing a more fine--grained…
Abstract argumentation offers an appealing way of representing and evaluating arguments and counterarguments. This approach can be enhanced by a probability assignment to each argument. There are various interpretations that can be ascribed…
We show that context semantics can be fruitfully applied to the quantitative analysis of proof normalization in linear logic. In particular, context semantics lets us define the weight of a proof-net as a measure of its inherent complexity:…