A Logic of Plausible Justifications

  • L. Menasché Schechter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7456)


In this work, we combine the frameworks of Justification Logics and Logics of Plausibility-Based Beliefs to build a logic for Multi-Agent Systems where each agent can explicitly state his justification for believing in a given sentence. Our logic is a normal modal logic based on the standard Kripke semantics, where we provide a semantic definition for the evidence terms and define the notion of plausible evidence for an agent, based on plausibility relations in the model. This way, unlike traditional Justification Logics, justifications can be actually faulty and unreliable. In our logic, agents can disagree not only over whether a sentence is true or false, but also on whether some evidence is a valid justification for a sentence or not. After defining our logic and its semantics, we provide a strongly complete axiomatic system for it and show that it has the finite model property and is decidable. Thus, this logic seems to be a good first step for the development of a dynamic logic that can model the processes of argumentation and debate in multi-agent systems.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Artemov, S.: Logic of proofs. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 67(1-3), 29–59 (1994)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Artemov, S.: Justified common knowledge. Theoretical Computer Science 357(1-3), 4–22 (2006)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Artemov, S., Nogina, E.: Introducing justification into epistemic logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 15(6), 1059–1073 (2005)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baltag, A., Smets, S.: Conditional doxastic models: A qualitative approach to dynamic belief revision. In: Queiroz, R., Mints, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th Workshop on Logic, Language, Information and Computation (WoLLIC 2006). Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 165, pp. 5–21. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baltag, A., Smets, S.: Dynamic belief revision over multi-agent plausibility models. In: Bonano, G., van der Hoek, W., Wooldridge, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory (LOFT 2006), pp. 11–24. Liverpool (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baltag, A., Smets, S.: Talking your way into agreement: Belief merge by persuasive communication. In: Baldoni, M., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second Multi-Agent Logics, Languages, and Organisations Federated Workshops. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 494, pp. 129–141. CEUR-WS.org, Aachen (2009), http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-494/ Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Benthem, J.: Dynamic logic for belief revision. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 17(2), 129–155 (2007)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Benthem, J., Liu, F.: Dynamic logic of preference upgrade. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 17(2), 157–182 (2007)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Benthem, J., Pacuit, E.: Dynamic logics of evidence-based beliefs. Studia Logica 99(1-3), 61–92 (2011)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., Venema, Y.: Modal Logic. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 53. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., Kooi, B.: Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Synthese Library. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fitting, M.: The logic of proofs, semantically. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 132(1), 1–25 (2005)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fitting, M.: A quantified logic of evidence. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 152(1-3), 67–83 (2008)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J.: Dynamic Logic. Foundations of Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van der Hoek, W., Verbrugge, R.: Epistemic logic: a survey. In: Petrosjan, L.A., Mazalov, V.V. (eds.) Game Theory and Applications, vol. 8, pp. 53–94. Nova Science Publishers, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Renne, B.: Dynamic Epistemic Logic with Justification. Ph.D. thesis, The City University of New York (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Renne, B.: Public communication in justification logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 21(6), 1005–1034 (2011)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Renne, B.: Multi-agent justification logic: Communication and evidence elimination. Synthese 185(S1), 43–82 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yavorskaya, T.: Interacting explicit evidence systems. Theory of Computing Systems 43(2), 272–293 (2008)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Menasché Schechter
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceFederal University of Rio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations