Weak Permission is not Well-Founded, Grounded and Stable

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.10624v1
• Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 23:14:30 GMT
• Title: Weak Permission is not Well-Founded, Grounded and Stable
• Abstract summary: We show that it is not possible to capture weak permission in the presence of deontic conflicts under the well-founded, grounded and (sceptical) stable semantics.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: We consider the notion of weak permission as the failure to conclude that the opposite obligation. We investigate the issue from the point of non-monotonic reasoning, specifically logic programming and structured argumentation, and we show that it is not possible to capture weak permission in the presence of deontic conflicts under the well-founded, grounded and (sceptical) stable semantics.

Related papers

• Truth or Sophistry? LoFa: A Benchmark for LLM Robustness Against Logical Fallacies [51.39569894108518]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong semantic capabilities, yet their resilience to manipulative linguistic patterns such as logical fallacies remains underexplored.<n>We introduce LoFa (Logical Fallacy), a benchmark for evaluating LLM robustness against fallacies.<n>We also propose Logical Fallacy Resistance at k (LFR@k), a metric that quantifies resistance to fallacious attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-30T02:17:45Z)
• Tenability and Weak Semantics: Modeling Non-uniform Defense -- Extended Version [0.0]
  Weak semantics relax the demands of admissibility by restricting which counterarguments must be taken seriously.<n>We introduce tenability, a family of dialogue-based semantics that formalize when a designated argument can be maintained against any conflict-free attack.<n>We define three variants -- static tenability, tenability, and strong tenability -- via monotone commitment games over finite conflict-free moves.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-03T19:20:13Z)
• Substrate Stability Under Persistent Disagreement: Structural Constraints for Neutral Ontological Substrates [0.0]
  interoperability cannot rely on shared interpretation, negotiated semantics, or centralized authority.<n>This paper investigates the structural constraints imposed on ontological design by this requirement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-22T17:51:02Z)
• Cogent argument extensions are weakly admissible but not vice versa [0.0]
  We show the relationship between two non-admissible argumentation framework semantics: cogent and weakly admissible semantics.<n>We prove that, while cogent extensions are weakly admissible, the converse is not true.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-12T15:26:57Z)
• Deontic Argumentation [0.0]
  Some recent results show that grounded semantics do not support weak permission when there is a conflict between two obligations.<n>We provide a definition of Deontic Argumentation Theory that accounts for weak permission, and we recall the result about grounded semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T04:50:07Z)
• Reasoning is about giving reasons [55.56111618153049]
  We show that we can identify and extract the logical structure of natural language arguments in three popular reasoning datasets with high accuracies.<n>Our approach supports all forms of reasoning that depend on the logical structure of the natural language argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-20T07:26:53Z)
• On Strong and Weak Admissibility in Non-Flat Assumption-Based Argumentation [4.583931917131698]
  We study two prominent alternatives to the standard notion of admissibility from abstract argumentation.<n>We introduce the respective preferred, complete and grounded semantics for general (sometimes called non-flat) ABA.<n>We show that the central modularization property is maintained under classical, strong, and weak admissibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-15T03:13:07Z)
• A Survey on Latent Reasoning [100.54120559169735]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities.<n>CoT reasoning that verbalizes intermediate steps limits the model's expressive bandwidth.<n>Latent reasoning tackles this bottleneck by performing multi-step inference entirely in the model's continuous hidden state.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-08T17:29:07Z)
• Rational Inference in Formal Concept Analysis [0.4499833362998487]
  Defeasible conditionals are a form of non-monotonic inference. KLM framework defines a semantics for the propositional case of defeasible conditionals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T20:15:20Z)
• Is the Top Still Spinning? Evaluating Subjectivity in Narrative Understanding [50.94206345567363]
  Forcing binary labels upon ambiguous claims lowers the reliability of evaluation. We introduce LLM-generated edits of summaries as a method of providing a nuanced evaluation of claims. We show that ARM produces a absolute 21% improvement in annotator agreement on claim faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T19:08:24Z)
• Revisiting Vacuous Reduct Semantics for Abstract Argumentation (Extended Version) [8.010966370223985]
  We consider the notion of a vacuous reduct semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks. We give a systematic overview on vacuous reduct semantics resulting from combining different admissibility-based and conflict-free semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-26T07:50:49Z)
• Mitigating Misleading Chain-of-Thought Reasoning with Selective Filtering [59.495717939664246]
  Large language models have manifested remarkable capabilities by leveraging chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning techniques to solve intricate questions. We propose a novel approach called the selective filtering reasoner (SelF-Reasoner) that assesses the entailment relationship between the question and the candidate reasoning chain. SelF-Reasoner improves the fine-tuned T5 baseline consistently over the ScienceQA, ECQA, and LastLetter tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-28T06:28:35Z)
• Language Models with Rationality [57.37201135072838]
  Large language models (LLMs) are proficient at question-answering (QA) It is not always clear how (or even if) an answer follows from their latent "beliefs"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T17:04:25Z)
• Fuzzy Labeling Semantics for Quantitative Argumentation [0.0]
  We provide a novel quantitative method called fuzzy labeling for fuzzy argumentation systems. A triple of acceptability, rejectability, and undecidability degrees is used to evaluate argument strength.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-15T08:31:36Z)
• Admissibility in Strength-based Argumentation: Complexity and Algorithms (Extended Version with Proofs) [1.5828697880068698]
  We study the adaptation of admissibility-based semantics to Strength-based Argumentation Frameworks (StrAFs) Especially, we show that the strong admissibility defined in the literature does not satisfy a desirable property, namely Dung's fundamental lemma. We propose a translation in pseudo-Boolean constraints for computing (strong and weak) extensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-05T18:42:04Z)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)
• Provable Limitations of Acquiring Meaning from Ungrounded Form: What will Future Language Models Understand? [87.20342701232869]
  We investigate the abilities of ungrounded systems to acquire meaning. We study whether assertions enable a system to emulate representations preserving semantic relations like equivalence. We find that assertions enable semantic emulation if all expressions in the language are referentially transparent. However, if the language uses non-transparent patterns like variable binding, we show that emulation can become an uncomputable problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-22T01:00:17Z)
• Stability in Abstract Argumentation [2.375764121997739]
  We show how the notion of stability can be translated into reasoning with Argument-Incomplete AFs. We illustrate to what extent this notion can be useful with an application to argument-based negotiation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-23T10:34:38Z)
• Strong Admissibility for Abstract Dialectical Frameworks [0.0]
  We present the concept of strong admissibility of interpretations for ADFs. We show that strongly admissible interpretations of ADFs form a lattice with the grounded interpretation as top element.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-10T21:50:35Z)
• A Weaker Faithfulness Assumption based on Triple Interactions [89.59955143854556]
  We propose a weaker assumption that we call $2$-adjacency faithfulness. We propose a sound orientation rule for causal discovery that applies under weaker assumptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-27T13:04:08Z)
• Proper Network Interpretability Helps Adversarial Robustness in Classification [91.39031895064223]
  We show that with a proper measurement of interpretation, it is difficult to prevent prediction-evasion adversarial attacks from causing interpretation discrepancy. We develop an interpretability-aware defensive scheme built only on promoting robust interpretation. We show that our defense achieves both robust classification and robust interpretation, outperforming state-of-the-art adversarial training methods against attacks of large perturbation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-26T01:31:31Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.