Advertisement

The development of a “Logic of Argumentation”

  • Paul Krause
  • Simon Ambler
  • John Fox
Logical Methods
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 682)

Abstract

A recurring problem with the development of decision support systems in medicine is the difficulty of eliciting precise numerical uncertainty values for large fragments of the domain. A prototype information system for general practitioners, the Oxford System of Medicine (OSM), addressed this problem by using an informal mechanism of argumentation. Arguments supporting and opposing the propositions of interest were identified when numerical uncertainty values where unavailable. We propose, in this paper, a proof theoretic model for reasoning under uncertainty which is motivated by the need to provide a formal underpinning for the OSM inference engine. As well as giving a presentation of a “Logic of Argumentation” (LA) as a labelled deduction system, we also discuss the development of a category theoretic semantics for LA.

Keywords

Gastric Ulcer Deductive System Inference Engine Intuitionistic Logic Enrich Category 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Ambler: A Categorical Approach to the Semantics of Argumentation. Department of Computer Science Report, Queen Mary College, London (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. G. de Bruijn: Lambda Calculus Notation with Nameless Dummies, a Tool for Automatic Formula Manipulation, with Application to the Church-Rosser Theorem. Indagationes Mathematicae 34, 381–392 (1972)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Chard: Qualitative probability versus quantitative probability in clinical diagnosis: a study using a computer simulation. Medical Decision Making 11, 38–41 (1991)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R.M. Dawes: The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist 34, 571–582 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Dyckhoff: Contraction-free Sequent Calculi for Intuitionistic Logic. J. Symbolic Logic (to appear, 1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Fox, A.J. Glowinski, C. Gordon, S.J. Hajnal, M.J. O'Neil: Logic engineering for knowledge engineering. Artifical Intelligence in Medicine 2, 323–339 (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Fox, D. A. Clark, A.J. Glowinski, M.J. O'Neil: Using predicate logic to integrate qualitative reasoning and classical decision theory. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 20, 347–357 (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Fox, M. Clarke: Towards a formalisation of arguments in decision making. Proc. Stanford Spring Symposium on Argumentation and Belief. 92–99 (1991)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Gabbay: Labelled Deductive Systems. CIS Technical Report 90-22, University of Munich 1990Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.H. Gallier Logic for Computer Science. Chichester: John Wiley 1987Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Girard, P. Taylor, Y. Lafont: Proofs and Types. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1989Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Heyting: Intuitionism. An Introduction. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publ. Co 1956Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.R. Hindley, J.P. Seldin: Introduction to Combinators and λ-Calculus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1986Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G.M. Kelly: Basic Concepts of Enriched Category Theory. London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Series 64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1982Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Lambek, P.J. Scott: Introduction to higher order categorical logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1986Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S.L. Lauritzen, D.J. Spiegelhalter: Local computations with probabilities on graphical structures and their application to expert systems. J. R. Statist. Soc. B. 50, 157–224 (1988)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Locke (1671). See: R.I. Aaron, J. Gibb (eds): An early draft of Locke's Essay. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1936Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. O'Neil, A.J. Glowinski: Evaluating and validating very large knowledge-based systems. Med. Inform. 15, 237–251 (1990)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    G. Shafer: Non-additive Probabilities in the Work of Bernoulli and Lambert. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 19, 309–370 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    P.N. Wilson: Justification, computational efficiency and generalisation of the Dempster Shafer Theory. Research Report no. 15, Dept. of Computing and Math. Sciences, Oxford Polytechnic 1989 (also to appear in Artificial Intelligence)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Krause
    • 1
  • Simon Ambler
    • 2
  • John Fox
    • 1
  1. 1.Imperial Cancer Research FundLondon
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and StatisticsQueen Mary and Westfield CollegeLondon

Personalised recommendations