Abstract
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).
This work was partially supported by the Secretaría de Ciencia y Técnica, Universidad Nacional del Sur.
Members of the Artificial Intelligence Research Group (Grupo de Investigación en Inteligencia Artificial, GIIA), Universidad Nacional del Sur, Argentina.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
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.
Lloyd, G., 1987, Foundations of Logic Programming, Springer-Verlag, 2nd. Edition.
Loveland, D., 1978, Automated Theorem Proving: A Logical Basis, North Holland.
McCarthy, J., 1980, Circunscription-A form of non-monotonic reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 13: 27–39.
McDermott, D. and Doyle, J., 1980, Non-monotonic logic I, Artificial Intelligence, 13: 41–72.
Lin, F. and Shoham, Y., 1989, Argument systems: a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning, STAN-CS-89-1243, Stanford University, Department of Computer Science.
Moore, R.C., 1985, Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic, in Artificial Intelligence Artificial Intelligence, 25:(1) 75–94.
Pollock, J.L., 1987, Defeasible reasoning, in Cognitive Science, 11:481–518.
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.
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.
Poole, D.L., 1988, A logical framework for default reasoning, in Artificial Intelligence 36, pp. 27–47.
Prakken, H., 1993, Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Arguments, PhD Thesis, Vrije University, Amsterdam, Holland.
Reiter, R., 1980, A logic for default reasoning, in Artificial Intelligence, 13: 81–132.
Simari, G.R., and Loui, R.P., 1992, A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation, in Artificial Intelligence, 53: 125–157.
Vreeswijk, G., 1991, The Feasibility of Defeat in Defeasible Reasoning, in Knowledge Representation’ 91.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1994 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
García, A.J., Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G.R. (1994). Making Argument Systems Computationally Attractive: Argument Construction and Maintenance. In: Baeza-Yates, R. (eds) Computer Science 2. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9805-0_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9805-0_27
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-9807-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-9805-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive