Standpoint Logics with Defeasible Beliefs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.08503v1
• Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2026 08:05:30 GMT
• Title: Standpoint Logics with Defeasible Beliefs
• Abstract summary: We integrate the defeasible logic of Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor with the standpoint logic framework of Gmez lvarez and Rudolph.<n>This is done with the goal of formally expressing knowledge taking into account multiple (possibly contradicting) viewpoints.<n>We show that, for each considered form of entailment, the complexity class of entailment checking does not change when moving from propositional KLM to DRSL.
• Score: 2.3722749986774403
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In this paper, we integrate the defeasible logic of Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor (KLM) with the standpoint logic framework of Gómez Álvarez and Rudolph. This is done with the goal of formally expressing knowledge taking into account multiple (possibly contradicting) viewpoints, which in turn may hold defeasible beliefs. In doing so, we utilise Defeasible Restricted Standpoint Logics (DRSL), introduced by Leisegang et al. Our work expands on previous work by providing a foundational representation result for DRSL semantics and systematically lifting several well-known entailment relations from the propositional case to the standpoint-enhanced setting. In particular, we characterise the semantics for DRSL through a set of KLM-style postulates adapted for the standpoints case. We furthermore provide a means to lift preferential entailment, and the class of entailment relations based on single ranking functions from the purely propositional to the standpoint-enhanced context, including rational and lexicographic closure. We show this can be done equivalently through semantic and algorithmic means. Furthermore, we show that, for each considered form of entailment, the complexity class of entailment checking does not change when moving from propositional KLM to DRSL.

Related papers

• Towards Non-Monotonic Entailment in Propositional Defeasible Standpoint Logic [0.0]
  We show that a large fragment of propositional defeasible standpoint logic is expressible as a set of situated conditionals.<n>We then focus on characterising non-monotonic entailment in this fragment, defining a method to transport any ranking-based entailment relation from the propositional case into the P case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T13:44:37Z)
• LaSER: Internalizing Explicit Reasoning into Latent Space for Dense Retrieval [74.72139580745511]
  LaSER is a novel self-distillation framework that internalizes explicit reasoning into the latent space of retrievers.<n>Our method successfully combines the reasoning depth of explicit CoT pipelines with the inference efficiency of standard dense retrievers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T04:11:18Z)
• CoT-Seg: Rethinking Segmentation with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning and Self-Correction [50.67483317563736]
  This paper aims to explore a system that can think step-by-step, look up information if needed, generate results, self-evaluate its own results, and refine the results.<n>We introduce CoT-Seg, a training-free framework that rethinks reasoning segmentation by combining chain-of-thought reasoning with self-correction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-24T11:41:54Z)
• Extending Defeasibility for Propositional Standpoint Logics [3.4410212782758043]
  We introduce a new defeasible version of propositional standpoint logic by integrating Kraus et al.'s defeasible conditionals, Britz and Varzinczak's notions of defeasible necessity and distinct possibility.<n>The resulting logical framework allows for the expression of defeasibility on the level of implications, standpoint modal operators, and standpoint-sharpening statements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T10:23:49Z)
• Towards Propositional KLM-Style Defeasible Standpoint Logics [3.8097021295196414]
  We introduce the logical system of Defeasible Restricted Standpoint Logic (DRSL) and define its syntax and semantics. Specifically, we integrate ranked interpretations and standpoint structures, which provide the semantics for propositional KLM and propositional standpoint logic respectively. We extend the non-monotonic entailment relation of rational closure from the propositional KLM case to the DRSL case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T18:07:03Z)
• On the Diagram of Thought [20.805936414171892]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at many tasks but often falter on complex problems that require structured, multi-step reasoning.<n>We introduce the Diagram of Thought (DoT), a new framework that enables a single LLM to build and navigate a mental map of its reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-16T07:01:41Z)
• Can LLMs Reason with Rules? Logic Scaffolding for Stress-Testing and Improving LLMs [87.34281749422756]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive human-like performance across various reasoning tasks. However, their mastery of underlying inferential rules still falls short of human capabilities. We propose a logic scaffolding inferential rule generation framework, to construct an inferential rule base, ULogic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T03:38:51Z)
• Neuro-Symbolic Integration Brings Causal and Reliable Reasoning Proofs [95.07757789781213]
  Two lines of approaches are adopted for complex reasoning with LLMs.<n>One line of work prompts LLMs with various reasoning structures, while the structural outputs can be naturally regarded as intermediate reasoning steps.<n>The other line of work adopt LLM-free declarative solvers to do the reasoning task, rendering higher reasoning accuracy but lacking interpretability due to the black-box nature of the solvers.<n>We present a simple extension to the latter line of work. Specifically, we showcase that the intermediate search logs generated by Prolog interpreters can be accessed and interpreted into human-readable reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T11:26:21Z)
• A Semantic Approach to Decidability in Epistemic Planning (Extended Version) [72.77805489645604]
  We use a novel semantic approach to achieve decidability. Specifically, we augment the logic of knowledge S5$_n$ and with an interaction axiom called (knowledge) commutativity. We prove that our framework admits a finitary non-fixpoint characterization of common knowledge, which is of independent interest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-28T11:26:26Z)
• 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)
• How to Agree to Disagree: Managing Ontological Perspectives using Standpoint Logic [2.9005223064604073]
  Standpoint Logic is a simple, yet versatile multi-modal logic add-on'' for existing KR languages. We provide a polytime translation into the standpoint-free version of First-Order Standpoint Logic. We then establish a similar translation for the very expressive description logic SROIQb_s underlying the OWL 2 DL language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-14T12:29:08Z)
• AGM Belief Revision, Semantically [1.7403133838762446]
  We establish a generic, model-theoretic characterization of belief revision operators implementing the paradigm of minimal change. Our characterization applies to all Tarskian logics, that is, all logics with a classical model-theoretic semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-27T07:53:21Z)

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.