Argument-based Logic Programming
In this chapter we describe several formalisms for integrating Logic ProgrammingandArgumentation. Research on the relation between logic programming and argumentation has been and still is fruitful in both directions: Some argumentation formalisms were used to define semantics for logic programming and also logic programming was used for providing an underlying representational language for non-abstract argumentation formalisms.
KeywordsLogic Program Logic Programming Argument Structure Argumentation Framework Nonmonotonic Reasoning
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
This research was funded by CONICET Argentina Project PIP 5050, and SGCyT, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Argentina.
- 3.G. Antoniou, D. Billington, G. Governatori, M. J. Maher, and A. Rock. A family of defeasible reasoning logics and its implementation. In Proceedings of European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pages 459–463, 2000.Google Scholar
- 4.G. Antoniou, D. Billington, and M. J. Maher. Normal forms for defeasible logic. In Proceedings of International Joint Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 160–174. MIT Press, 1998.Google Scholar
- 6.D. Bryant, P. J. Krause, and G. Vreeswijk. Argue tuProlog: A Lightweight Argumentation Engine for Agent Applications. In Proc. of 1st Int. Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA06), pages 27–32. IOS Press, 2006.Google Scholar
- 9.J. Dix, C. Chesñevar, F. Stolzenburg, and G. Simari. Relating Defeasible and Normal Logic Programming through Transformation Properties. Theoretical Computer Science, 290(1):499–529, 2002.Google Scholar
- 11.E. Ferretti, M. Errecalde, A. García, and G. Simari. Decision rules and arguments in defeasible decision making. In P. Besnard, S. Doutre, and A. Hunter, editors, Proc. 2nd Int. Conference on Computational Models of Arguments (COMMA), volume 172 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 171–182. IOS Press,2008.Google Scholar
- 12.D. Gabbay. Theoretical foundations for non-monotonic reasoning in expert systems. In K. Apt, editor, Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, pages 439–459. Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
- 13.A. García, N. Rotstein, M. Tucat, and G. Simari. An argumentative reasoning service for deliberative agents. In Z. Zhang and J. Siekmann, editors, LNAI 4798 Proceedings of the 2nd. International Conference on Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management (KSEM 2007), pages ,128–139. Springer-Verlag, 2007.Google Scholar
- 14.A. J. García, N. D. Rotstein, and G. R. Simari. Dialectical explanations in defeasible argumentation. In K. Mellouli, editor, ECSQARU, volume 4724 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 295–307. Springer, 2007.Google Scholar
- 17.V. Lifschitz. Foundations of logic programs. In G. Brewka, editor, Principles of Knowledge Representation, pages 69–128. CSLI Pub., 1996.Google Scholar
- 18.D. Makinson. General patterns in nonmonotonic reasoning. In D. Gabbay, editor, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming (vol 3): Nonmonotonic and Uncertain Reasoning, pages 35–110. Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
- 19.D. Nute. Defeasible reasoning. In Proc. of the 20th annual Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences, 1987.Google Scholar
- 20.D. Nute. Defeasible logic. In D. Gabbay, C. Hogger, and J.A.Robinson, editors, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol 3, pages 355–395. Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
- 21.J. Pollock. Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
- 22.H. Prakken. Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Kluwer Law and Philosophy Library, 1997.Google Scholar
- 25.H. Prakken and G. Vreeswijk. Logical systems for defeasible argumentation. In D.Gabbay, editor, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd ed. Kluwer, 2000.Google Scholar
- 27.G. R. Simari, C. I. Chesñevar, and A. J. García. The role of dialectics in defeasible argumentation. In Proc. of the XIV Int. Conf. of the Chilenean Computer Science Society, pages 335–344, 1994.Google Scholar