A Logic of Uncertain Interpretation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15544v1
• Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 13:40:51 GMT
• Title: A Logic of Uncertain Interpretation
• Authors: Adam Bjorndahl,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a logical framework for reasoning about "uncertain interpretations"<n>We investigate two key applications: a new semantics for implication capturing a kind of "meaning entailment" and a conservative notion of "evidentially supported" belief.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We introduce a logical framework for reasoning about "uncertain interpretations" and investigate two key applications: a new semantics for implication capturing a kind of "meaning entailment", and a conservative notion of "evidentially supported" belief that takes the form of a Dempster-Shafer belief function.

Related papers

• On Lockean beliefs that are deductively closed and minimal change [1.4624458429745086]
  Lockean belief sets are not generally closed under (classical) logical deduction.<n>We show how we can deductively close a belief set via a minimal revision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-08T14:44:01Z)
• On the Logical Content of Logic Programs [0.0]
  This paper introduces a novel perspective on Logic programming (LP) by defining a support'' relation that explicates what a program knows''<n>Results are formalized using the idea of base-extension semantics within proof-theoretic semantics.<n>Our approach offers new insights into the logical foundations of LP and has potential applications in knowledge representation, automated reasoning, and formal verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T11:58:08Z)
• 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)
• Exploiting Reasoning Chains for Multi-hop Science Question Answering [51.86289192292466]
  Our framework is capable of performing explainable reasoning without the need of any corpus-specific annotations. A textitChain-aware loss, concerning both local and global chain information, is also designed to enable the generated chains to serve as distant supervision signals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-07T07:22:07Z)
• A Description Logic for Analogical Reasoning [28.259681405091666]
  We present a mechanism to infer plausible missing knowledge, which relies on reasoning by analogy. This is the first paper that studies analog reasoning within the setting of description logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-10T19:06:07Z)
• The Struggles of Feature-Based Explanations: Shapley Values vs. Minimal Sufficient Subsets [61.66584140190247]
  We show that feature-based explanations pose problems even for explaining trivial models. We show that two popular classes of explainers, Shapley explainers and minimal sufficient subsets explainers, target fundamentally different types of ground-truth explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-23T09:45:23Z)
• On a plausible concept-wise multipreference semantics and its relations with self-organising maps [0.0]
  We argue that this proposal satisfies some desired properties, such as KLM, and avoids the drowning problem. We motivate the plausibility of the concept-wise multi-preference semantics by developing a logical semantics of self-organising maps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-30T21:06:06Z)
• Logical Neural Networks [51.46602187496816]
  We propose a novel framework seamlessly providing key properties of both neural nets (learning) and symbolic logic (knowledge and reasoning) Every neuron has a meaning as a component of a formula in a weighted real-valued logic, yielding a highly intepretable disentangled representation. Inference is omni rather than focused on predefined target variables, and corresponds to logical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-23T16:55:45Z)
• Moore's Paradox and the logic of belief [0.0]
  Moores Paradox is a test case for any formal theory of belief. I argue that Hintikkas interpretation of one of the doxastic operators is philosophically problematic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-19T20:41:19Z)
• Aligning Faithful Interpretations with their Social Attribution [58.13152510843004]
  We find that the requirement of model interpretations to be faithful is vague and incomplete. We identify that the problem is a misalignment between the causal chain of decisions (causal attribution) and the attribution of human behavior to the interpretation (social attribution)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-01T16:45:38Z)
• Belief functions induced by random fuzzy sets: A general framework for representing uncertain and fuzzy evidence [6.713564212269253]
  We generalize Zadeh's notion of "evidence of the second kind" We show that it makes it possible to reconcile the possibilistic interpretation of likelihood with Bayesian inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-24T10:14:54Z)
• Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness? [58.13152510843004]
  With the growing popularity of deep-learning based NLP models, comes a need for interpretable systems. What is interpretability, and what constitutes a high-quality interpretation? We call for more clearly differentiating between different desired criteria an interpretation should satisfy, and focus on the faithfulness criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-07T20:15:28Z)

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.