On the Dynamics of Structured Argumentation: Modeling Changes in Default Justification Logic

2020 ◽  
pp. 222-241
Author(s):  
Stipe Pandžić
Keyword(s):  
Justification Logic ◽  
Structured Argumentation

scholarly journals Structured argumentation dynamics

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stipe Pandžić
Keyword(s):  
Belief Revision ◽  
Default Reasoning ◽  
Justification Logic ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Reasoning Under Uncertainty ◽  
New Information ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Structured Argumentation ◽  
Revision Operations ◽  
Logic Reasoning

AbstractThis paper develops a logical theory that unifies all three standard types of argumentative attack in AI, namely rebutting, undercutting and undermining attacks. We build on default justification logic that already represents undercutting and rebutting attacks, and we add undermining attacks. Intuitively, undermining does not target default inference, as undercutting, or default conclusion, as rebutting, but rather attacks an argument’s premise as a starting point for default reasoning. In default justification logic, reasoning starts from a set of premises, which is then extended by conclusions that hold by default. We argue that modeling undermining defeaters in the view of default theories requires changing the set of premises upon receiving new information. To model changes to premises, we give a dynamic aspect to default justification logic by using the techniques from the logic of belief revision. More specifically, undermining is modeled with belief revision operations that include contracting a set of premises, that is, removing some information from it. The novel combination of default reasoning and belief revision in justification logic enriches both approaches to reasoning under uncertainty. By the end of the paper, we show some important aspects of defeasible argumentation in which our logic compares favorably to structured argumentation frameworks.

scholarly journals Security assurance cases—state of the art of an emerging approach

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mazen Mohamad ◽  
Jan-Philipp Steghöfer ◽  
Riccardo Scandariato
Keyword(s):  
State Of The Art ◽  
Tool Support ◽  
Security Assurance ◽  
The Past ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Structured Argumentation ◽  
Security Properties ◽  
Standards And Regulations ◽  
Assurance Cases ◽  
Security Standards

AbstractSecurity Assurance Cases (SAC) are a form of structured argumentation used to reason about the security properties of a system. After the successful adoption of assurance cases for safety, SAC are getting significant traction in recent years, especially in safety-critical industries (e.g., automotive), where there is an increasing pressure to be compliant with several security standards and regulations. Accordingly, research in the field of SAC has flourished in the past decade, with different approaches being investigated. In an effort to systematize this active field of research, we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) of the existing academic studies on SAC. Our review resulted in an in-depth analysis and comparison of 51 papers. Our results indicate that, while there are numerous papers discussing the importance of SAC and their usage scenarios, the literature is still immature with respect to concrete support for practitioners on how to build and maintain a SAC. More importantly, even though some methodologies are available, their validation and tool support is still lacking.

scholarly journals Probabilistic Justification Logic

Philosophies ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Lurie
Keyword(s):  
Justification Logic ◽  
Probabilistic Justification

A structured argumentation system with backing and undercutting

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
pp. 149-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Cohen ◽  
Alejandro J. García ◽  
Guillermo R. Simari
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation System ◽  
Structured Argumentation

Template-Based Structured Argumentation

2008 ◽  
pp. 307-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Lowrance ◽  
Ian Harrison ◽  
Andres Rodriguez ◽  
Eric Yeh ◽  
Tom Boyce ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Structured Argumentation

scholarly journals A Conflict Tolerant Logic of Explicit Evidence

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-144
Author(s):  
Thomas Studer
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Quantum Physics ◽  
Thought Experiment ◽  
The Other ◽  
Justification Logic ◽  
Epistemic Modal ◽  
Epistemic Reasoning ◽  
Basic Properties

Standard epistemic modal logic is unable to adequately deal with the FrauchigerRenner paradox in quantum physics. We introduce a novel justification logic CTJ, in which the paradox can be formalized without leading to an inconsistency. Still CTJ is strong enough to model traditional epistemic reasoning. Our logic tolerates two different pieces of evidence such that one piece justifies a proposition and the other piece justifies the negation of that proposition. However, our logic disallows one piece of evidence to justify both a proposition and its negation. We present syntax and semantics for CTJ and discuss its basic properties. Then we give an example of epistemic reasoning in CTJ that illustrates how the different principles of CTJ interact. We continue with the formalization of the Frauchiger–Renner thought experiment and discuss it in detail. Further, we add a trust axiom to CTJ and again discuss epistemic reasoning and the paradox in this extended setting.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document