Structured argumentation dynamics

This 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.

Stage 1 Registered Report: Metacognitive asymmetries in visual perception

People have better metacognitive sensitivity for decisions about the presence compared to the absence of objects. However, it is not only objects themselves that can be present or absent, but also parts of objects and other visual features. Asymmetries in visual search indicate that a disadvantage for representing absence may operate at these levels as well. Furthermore, a processing advantage for surprising signals suggests that a presence/absence asymmetry may be explained by absence being passively represented as a default state, and presence as a default-violating surprise. It is unknown whether metacognitive asymmetry for judgements about presence and absence extend to these different levels of representation (object, feature, and default-violation). To address this question and test for a link between the representation of absence and default reasoning more generally, here we measure metacognitive sensitivity for discrimination judgments between stimuli that are identical except for the presence or absence of a distinguishing feature, and for stimuli that differ in their compliance with an expected default state.

Metacognitive asymmetries in visual perception

People have better metacognitive sensitivity for decisions about the presence compared to the absence of objects. However, it is not only objects themselves that can be present or absent, but also parts of objects and other visual features. Asymmetries in visual search indicate that a disadvantage for representing absence may operate at these levels as well. Furthermore, a processing advantage for surprising signals suggests that a presence/absence asymmetry may be explained by absence being passively represented as a default state, and presence as a default-violating surprise. It is unknown whether the metacognitive asymmetry for judgments about presence and absence extends to these different levels of representation (object, feature, and default violation). To address this question and test for a link between the representation of absence and default reasoning more generally, here we measure metacognitive sensitivity for discrimination judgments between stimuli that are identical except for the presence or absence of a distinguishing feature, and for stimuli that differ in their compliance with an expected default state.

An Answer Set Programming Framework for Reasoning about Agents' Beliefs and Truthfulness of Statements

The paper proposes a framework for capturing how an agent’s beliefs evolve over time in response to observations and for answering the question of whether statements made by a third party can be believed. The basic components of the framework are a formalism for reasoning about actions, changes, and observations and a formalism for default reasoning. The paper describes a concrete implementation that leverages answer set programming for determining the evolution of an agent's ``belief state'', based on observations, knowledge about the effects of actions, and a theory about how these influence an agent's beliefs. The beliefs are then used to assess whether statements made by a third party can be accepted as truthful. The paper investigates an application of the proposed framework in the detection of man-in-the-middle attacks targeting computers and cyber-physical systems. Finally, we briefly discuss related work and possible extensions.

Correcting Misperceptions: The Causal Role of Motivation in Corrective Science Communication About Vaccine and Food Safety

Some people stick to beliefs that do not align with scientific consensus when faced with science communication that contradicts those misperceptions. Two preregistered experiments (total N = 1,256) investigated the causal role of motivated reasoning in the effectiveness of correcting misperceptions. In both experiments, accuracy-driven reasoning led to a larger corrective effect of a science communication message than reasoning driven by directional motivation. Individuals’ default reasoning made them just as receptive to the correction as accuracy-driven reasoning. This finding supports a more optimistic view of human receptivity to science communication than often found in the literature.

Correcting Misperceptions: The Causal Role of Motivation in Corrective Science Communication about Vaccine and Food Safety (Preprint)

Some people stick to beliefs that do not align with scientific consensus when faced with science communication that contradicts those misperceptions. Two preregistered experiments (total N = 1,256) investigated the causal role of motivated reasoning in the effectiveness of correcting misperceptions. In both experiments, accuracy-driven reasoning led to a larger corrective effect of a science communication message than reasoning driven by directional motivation. Individuals’ default reasoning made them just as receptive to the correction as accuracy-driven reasoning. This finding supports a more optimistic view of human receptivity to science communication than often found in the literature.

Role honorifics

This chapter considers a kind of honorific which doesn't directly reference register: rather, it introduces a predication of a property which is relevant to social status or formality as a result of social facts and speaker knowledge of those facts. This chapter treats such honorification in terms of default reasoning about intention on the basis of social facts and speaker use of certain expressions.