Subset models for justification logic

We introduce a new semantics for justification logic based on subset relations. Instead of using the established and more symbolic interpretation of justifications, we model justifications as sets of possible worlds. We introduce a new justification logic that is sound and complete with respect to our semantics. Moreover, we present another variant of our semantics that corresponds to traditional justification logic. These types of models offer us a versatile tool to work with justifications, e.g.~by extending them with a probability measure to capture uncertain justifications. Following this strategy we will show that they subsume Artemov's approach to aggregating probabilistic evidence

Probabilistic justification logic

We present a probabilistic justification logic, PPJ⁠, as a framework for uncertain reasoning about rational belief, degrees of belief and justifications. We establish soundness and strong completeness for PPJ with respect to the class of so-called measurable Kripke-like models and show that the satisfiability problem is decidable. We discuss how PPJ provides insight into the well-known lottery paradox

Probabilistic Justification Logic

Justification logics are constructive analogues of modal logics. They are often used as epistemic logics, particularly as models of evidentialist justification. However, in this role, justification (and modal) logics are defective insofar as they represent justification with a necessity-like operator, whereas actual evidentialist justification is usually probabilistic. This paper first examines and rejects extant candidates for solving this problem: Milnikel’s Logic of Uncertain Justifications, Ghari’s Hájek–Pavelka-Style Justification Logics and a version of probabilistic justification logic developed by Kokkinis et al. It then proposes a new solution to the problem in the form of a justification logic that incorporates the essential features of both a fuzzy logic and a probabilistic logic

Modular Logic Programming: Full Compositionality and Conflict Handling for Practical Reasoning

With the recent development of a new ubiquitous nature of data and the profusity of available knowledge, there is nowadays the need to reason from multiple sources of often incomplete and uncertain knowledge. Our goal was to provide a way to combine declarative knowledge bases – represented as logic programming modules under the answer set semantics – as well as the individual results one already inferred from them, without having to recalculate the results for their composition and without having to explicitly know the original logic programming encodings that produced such results. This posed us many challenges such as how to deal with fundamental problems of modular frameworks for logic programming, namely how to define a general compositional semantics that allows us to compose unrestricted modules. Building upon existing logic programming approaches, we devised a framework capable of composing generic logic programming modules while preserving the crucial property of compositionality, which informally means that the combination of models of individual modules are the models of the union of modules. We are also still able to reason in the presence of knowledge containing incoherencies, which is informally characterised by a logic program that does not have an answer set due to cyclic dependencies of an atom from its default negation. In this thesis we also discuss how the same approach can be extended to deal with probabilistic knowledge in a modular and compositional way. We depart from the Modular Logic Programming approach in Oikarinen & Janhunen (2008); Janhunen et al. (2009) which achieved a restricted form of compositionality of answer set programming modules. We aim at generalising this framework of modular logic programming and start by lifting restrictive conditions that were originally imposed, and use alternative ways of combining these (so called by us) Generalised Modular Logic Programs. We then deal with conflicts arising in generalised modular logic programming and provide modular justifications and debugging for the generalised modular logic programming setting, where justification models answer the question: Why is a given interpretation indeed an Answer Set? and Debugging models answer the question: Why is a given interpretation not an Answer Set? In summary, our research deals with the problematic of formally devising a generic modular logic programming framework, providing: operators for combining arbitrary modular logic programs together with a compositional semantics; We characterise conflicts that occur when composing access control policies, which are generalisable to our context of generalised modular logic programming, and ways of dealing with them syntactically: provided a unification for justification and debugging of logic programs; and semantically: provide a new semantics capable of dealing with incoherences. We also provide an extension of modular logic programming to a probabilistic setting. These goals are already covered with published work. A prototypical tool implementing the unification of justifications and debugging is available for download from http://cptkirk.sourceforge.net