177,298 research outputs found
Argument-based Logic Programming
No full textIn this chapter we describe several formalisms for integrating Logic Programming and Argumentation. 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.Fil: García, Alejandro Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur; ArgentinaFil: Dix, Jürgen. University of Technology. Department of Informatics Clausthal; AlemaniaFil: Simari, Guillermo Ricardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur; Argentin
Belief revision and argumentation:a reasoning process view
No full textThis chapter aims at comparing and relating belief revision and argumentation as approaches to model reasoning processes. Referring to some prominent literature references in both fields, we will discuss their (implicit or explicit) assumptions on the modeled processes and hence commonalities and differences in the forms of reasoning they are suitable to deal with. The intended contribution is on one hand assessing the (not fully explored yet) relationships between two lively research fields in the broad area of defeasible reasoning and on the other hand pointing out open issues and potential directions for future research
G.: On acceptability in abstract argumentation frameworks with an extended defeat relation
No full textAbstract. Defeat between arguments is established by a combination of two basic elements: a conflict or defeat relation, and a preference relation on the arguments involved in this conflict. We present a new abstract framework for argumentation where two kinds of defeat are present, depending on the outcome of the preferenc
Moving between Argumentation Frameworks
No full textAbstract argument frameworks have been used for various applications within multi-agent systems, including reasoning and negotiation. Different argument frameworks make use of different inter-argument relations and semantics to identify some subset of arguments as coherent, yet there is no easy way to map between these frameworks; most commonly, this is done manually according to human intuition. In response, in this paper, we show how a set of arguments described using Dung's or Nielsen's argument frameworks can be mapped from and to an argument framework that includes both attack and support relations. This mapping preserves the framework's semantics in the sense that an argument deemed coherent in one framework is coherent in the other under a related semantics. Interestingly, this translation is not unique, with one set of arguments in the support based framework mapping to multiple argument sets within the attack only framework. Additionally, we show how EAF can be mapped into a subset of the argument interchange format (AIF). By using this mapping, any other argument framework using this subset of AIF can be translated into a DAF while preserving its semantics
A Justification Finder
No full textThe technical report presents a succinct description of the Justification Finder (if). The system if is a practical implementation of the theoretical ideas introduced elsewhere (see the technical report On the Logic of Defeasible Reasoning , G Simari, WUCS-89-12). It is used to explore and validate those ideas. The system provides support for defeasible reasoning in a Prolog environment. The complete Prolog language is available and only a few new predicates are introduced extending the reserved words of the language. We will present the theoretical underpinnings of the system in a very terse manner. The reader is referred to [1] for a more complete account of defeasible reasoning
- …
