An Argumentative Approach for Explaining Preemption in Soft-Constraint Based Norms

TL;DR

This paper introduces a derivation state argumentation framework (DSA-framework) to explain preemption in soft-constraint based norms, showing how higher norms override lower ones with evolving information.

Contribution

The paper presents a novel DSA-framework that formalizes explanations of preemption in soft-constraint norms using derivation states and logical hierarchies.

Findings

DSA-framework effectively explains preemption scenarios.

Formal proof of explanation validity under local optimality.

Applicable to normative systems with evolving information.

Abstract

Although various aspects of soft-constraint based norms have been explored, it is still challenging to understand preemption. Preemption is a situation where higher-level norms override lower-level norms when new information emerges. To address this, we propose a derivation state argumentation framework (DSA-framework). DSA-framework incorporates derivation states to explain how preemption arises based on evolving situational knowledge. Based on DSA-framework, we present an argumentative approach for explaining preemption. We formally prove that, under local optimality, DSA-framework can provide explanations why one consequence is obligatory or forbidden by soft-constraint based norms represented as logical constraint hierarchies.