Making Argument Systems Computationally Attractive: Argument Construction and Maintenance
Argumentative systems (Pollock, 1987; Vreeswijk, 1989; Prakken, 1993) are formalizations of the process of “defeasible reasoning”, i. e., reasoning to reach conclusions that could be discarded when new evidence appears. An argument for a conclusion p is a tentative piece of reasoning an agent would accept to explain p. If the agent gets new information, the conclusion p together with the argument that supported p may no longer be valid. In that way nonmonotonicity arises. The analysis of the relationships among arguments naturally captures many features of commonsense reasoning, which could be unclear or difficult to introduce in other frameworks, such as Default Logic (Reiter, 1980), Nonmonotonic Logic (McDermott & Doyle, 1980), Autoepistemic Logic (Moore, 1985) and Circumscription (McCarthy, 1980).
KeywordsAtomic Formula Argument Structure Strong Rule Pruning Strategy Default Logic
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- García, A.J., Chesñevar, C.I. and Simari, G.R., 1993, Bases de argumentos: su mantenimiento y revisión, in XIX Conferencia Latinoamericana de Informática, 22as. Jornadas Argentinas de Informática e Investigación Operativa.Google Scholar
- Lloyd, G., 1987, Foundations of Logic Programming, Springer-Verlag, 2nd. Edition.Google Scholar
- Loveland, D., 1978, Automated Theorem Proving: A Logical Basis, North Holland.Google Scholar
- Lin, F. and Shoham, Y., 1989, Argument systems: a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning, STAN-CS-89-1243, Stanford University, Department of Computer Science.Google Scholar
- Poole, D.L., 1985a, On the comparison of theories: preferring the most specific explanation, in Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 144-147, IJCAI.Google Scholar
- Poole, D.L., Aleliunas, R. and Goebel, R., 1985b, THEORIST: A logical reasoning system for defaults and diagnosis, Technical Report, Departament of Computer Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.Google Scholar
- Prakken, H., 1993, Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Arguments, PhD Thesis, Vrije University, Amsterdam, Holland.Google Scholar
- Vreeswijk, G., 1991, The Feasibility of Defeat in Defeasible Reasoning, in Knowledge Representation’ 91.Google Scholar