Abstract
We define abstract proof procedures for performing credulous and sceptical non-monotonic reasoning, with respect to the argumentation-theoretic formulation of non-monotonic reasoning proposed in [1]. Appropriate instances of the proposed proof procedures provide concrete proof procedures for concrete formalisms for non-monotonic reasoning, for example logic programming with negation as failure and default logic. We propose (credulous and sceptical) proof procedures under different argumentation-theoretic semantics, namely the conventional stable model semantics and the more liberal partial stable model or preferred extension semantics. We study the relationships between proof procedures for different semantics, and argue that, in many meaningful cases, the (simpler) proof procedures for reasoning under the preferred extension semantics can be used as sound and complete procedures for reasoning under the stable model semantics. In many meaningful cases still, proof procedures for credulous reasoning under the preferred extension semantics can be used as (much simpler) sound and complete procedures for sceptical reasoning under the preferred extension semantics. We compare the proposed proof procedures with existing proof procedures in the literature.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
A. Bondarenko, P. M. Dung, R. A. Kowalski, F. Toni, An abstract, argumentation-theoretic framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93:63–101, 1997.
Y. Dimopoulos, A. C. Kakas, Logic Programming without Negation as Failure, Proceedings of the 1995 International Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 369–383, 1995.
Y. Dimopoulos, B. Nebel, F. Toni, Preferred Arguments are Harder to Compute than Stable Extensions, Proc. of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 99, (T. Dean ed.), pp. 36–43, 1999.
Y. Dimopoulos, B. Nebel, F. Toni, Finding Admissible and Preferred Arguments Can Be Very Hard, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 2000, (A. G. Cohn, F. Giunchiglia, B. Selman eds.), pp. 53–61, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2000.
P. M. Dung, Negation as hypothesis: an abductive foundation for logic programming. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Logic Programming, Paris, France (K. Furukawa, ed.), MIT Press, pp. 3–17, 1991.
P. M. Dung, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games Artificial Intelligence 77:321–357, Elsevier, 1993.
P. M. Dung, R. A. Kowalski, F. Toni, Synthesis of proof procedures for default reasoning, Proc. LOPSTR’96, International Workshop on Logic Program Synthesis and Transformation, (J. Gallagher ed.), pp. 313–324, LNCS 1207, Springer Verlag, 1996.
P. M. Dung, R. A. Kowalski, F. Toni, Proof procedures for default reasoning. In preparation, 2002.
K. Eshghi, R. A. Kowalski, Abduction compared with negation as failure. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming, Lisbon, Portugal (G. Levi and M. Martelli, eds), MIT Press, pp. 234–254, 1989
M. Gelfond, V. Lifschitz, The stable model semantics for logic programming. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Logic Programming, Washington, Seattle (K. Bowen and R. A. Kowalski, eds), MIT Press, pp. 1070–1080, 1988
K. Inoue, M. Koshimura, R. Hasegawa, Embedding negation as failure into a model generation theorem-prover. Proc. CADE’92, pp. 400–415, LNCS 607, Springer, 1992.
A. C. Kakas, R. A. Kowalski, F. Toni, The role of abduction in logic programming. Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming (D.M. Gabbay, C.J. Hogger and J.A. Robinson eds.), 5: 235–324, Oxford University Press, 1998.
A. C. Kakas, P. Mancarella. Preferred extensions are partial stable models. Journal of Logic Programming 14(3,4), pp. 341–348, 1993.
A. C. Kakas, P. Mancarella, P. M. Dung, The Acceptability Semantics for Logic Programs, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 504–519, 1994.
A. C. Kakas, F. Toni, Computing Argumentation in Logic Programming. Journal of Logic and Computation 9:515–562, Oxford University Press, 1999.
J. McCarthy, Circumscription-a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 1327–39, 1980.
D. McDermott, Nonmonotonic logic II: non-monotonic modal theories. Journal of ACM 29(1), pp. 33–57, 1982.
R. Moore, Semantical considerations on non-monotonic logic. Artificial Intelligence 25:75–94, 1985.
I. Niemelä, Towards efficient default reasoning. Proc. IJCAI’95, pp. 312–318, Morgan Kaufman, 1995.
I. Niemelä, P. Simons, Efficient implementation of the well-founded and stable model semantics. Proc. JICSLP’96, pp. 289–303, MIT Press, 1996.
J. L. Pollock. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11(4):481–518, 1987.
D. Poole, A logical framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 36:27–47, 1988.
H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A system for defeasible argumentation, with defeasible priorities. Artificial Intelligence Today, (M. Wooldridge and M. M. Veloso, eds.), LNCS 1600, pp. 365–379, Springer, 1999.
H. Prakken and G. Vreeswijk. Logical systems for defeasible argumentation. Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edition, (D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner eds.), Vol. 4, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001.
R. Reiter, A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13:81–132, Elsevier, 1980).
D. Saccà, C. Zaniolo, Stable model semantics and non-determinism for logic programs with negation. Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, ACM Press, pp. 205–217, 1990.
K. Satoh, A top-down proof procedure for default logic by using abduction. Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 65–69, John Wiley and Sons, 1994.
K. Satoh and N. Iwayama. A Query Evaluation Method for Abductive Logic Programming. Proceedings of the Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 671–685, 1992.
G.R. Simari and R.P. Loui. A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 52:125–257, 1992.
M. Thielscher, A nonmonotonic disputation-based semantics and proof procedure for logic programs. Proceedings of the 1996 Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming (M. Maher ed.), pp. 483–497, 1996.
F. Toni, Argumentation-theoretic proof procedures for logic programming. Technical Report, Department of Computing, Imperial College, 1997.
G. Vreeswijk. The feasibility of defeat in defeasible reasoning. Proceedings of the 2nd Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’91), (J.F. Allen, R. Fikes, E. Sandewall, eds.), pp. 526–534, 1991.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F. (2002). Argumentation-Based Proof Procedures for Credulous and Sceptical Non-monotonic Reasoning. In: Kakas, A.C., Sadri, F. (eds) Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2408. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45632-5_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45632-5_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-43960-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45632-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive