# Explaining Non-monotonic Normative Reasoning using Argumentation Theory with Deontic Logic

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.11780 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.11780/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 3 of its 13 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Sep 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.07269/) (2017)
- [A General Account of Argumentation with Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.06763/) (2018)
- [An Argumentation-Based Legal Reasoning Approach for DL-Ontology](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.03070/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Deontic Argumentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.25781/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In our previous research, we provided a reasoning system (called LeSAC) based on argumentation theory to provide legal support to designers during the design process. Building on this, this paper explores how to provide designers with effective explanations for their legally relevant design decisions. We extend the previous system for providing explanations by specifying norms and the key legal or ethical principles for justifying actions in normative contexts. Considering that first-order logic has strong expressive power, in the current paper we adopt a first-order deontic logic system with deontic operators and preferences. We illustrate the advantages and necessity of introducing deontic logic and designing explanations under LeSAC by modelling two cases in the context of autonomous driving. In particular, this paper also discusses the requirements of the updated LeSAC to guarantee rationality, and proves that a well-defined LeSAC can satisfy the rationality postulate for rule-based argumentation frameworks. This ensures the system's ability to provide coherent, legally valid explanations for complex design decisions.