Abstract
Argument-based formalisms are gaining popularity as models of non-monotonic reasoning. Central in such formalisms is a notion of argument. Arguments are formal reconstructions of how a conclusion is supported. Generally, an argument is defeasible. This means that an argument supporting a conclusion does not always justify its conclusion: the argument can be defeated. Whether a conclusion supported by an argument is justified depends on the structure of the argument and on the other arguments available.
In this paper, we argue for four points that are refinements of how arguments and defeat have been used in argument-based nonmonotonic reasoning. First we argue that an argument can be defeated because it contains a weak sequence of steps; second that arguments accrue, which means that arguments for a conclusion reinforce each other; third that defeat can be compound, which means that groups of arguments can defeat other groups of arguments; fourth that defeated arguments must be distinguished from not yet considered arguments. In related work these points are overlooked, or even denied. We describe a formalism that incorporates them.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bondarenko, A., Toni, F. and Kowalski, R. A. (1993). An assumption-based framework for non-monotonic reasoning. Logic programming and non-monotonic reasoning. Proceedings of the second international workshop (eds. L. M. Pereira and A. Nerode), pp. 171–189. The MIT Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts).
Dung, P. M. (1993). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and human's social and economical affairs.
Hage, J. and Verheij, B. (1994). Reason-Based Logic: a logic for reasoning with rules and reasons. To appear in Law, Computers and Artificial Intelligence.
Lin, F. (1993). An argument-based approach to nonmonotonic reasoning. Computational Intelligence, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 254–267.
Loui, R. P. (1987). Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 100–106.
Nute, D. (1988). Defeasible reasoning: a philosophical analysis in Prolog. Aspects of Artificial Intelligence (ed. James H. Fetzer), pp. 251–288. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Pollock, J. L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11, pp. 481–518.
Pollock, J. L. (1991). Self-defeating arguments. Minds and Machines 1, pp. 367–392.
Pollock, J. L. (1994). Justification and defeat. Artificial Intelligence 67, pp. 377–407.
Poole, D. (1988). A logical framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 36, pp. 27–47.
Prakken, H. (1993). A logical framework for modelling legal argument. The Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Proceedings of the Conference, pp. 1–9. ACM, New York.
Simari, G. R. and Loui, R. P. (1992). A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its applications. Artificial Intelligence 53, pp. 125–157.
Touretzky, D. S., Horty, J. F., and Thomason, R. H. (1987). A clash of intuitions: the current state of nonmonotonic multiple inheritance systems. IJCAI 87; Proceedings of the Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ed. J. McDermott), pp. 476–482. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Los Altos (California).
Verheij, H. B. (1994). Reason Based Logic and legal knowledge representation. Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Law, Computers and Artificial Intelligence (eds. I. Carr and A. Narayanan), pp. 154–165. University of Exeter.
Verheij, B. (1995). The influence of defeated arguments in defeasible argumentation. Accepted for the Second World Conference on the Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence (WOCFAI 95).
Vreeswijk, G. (1991). Abstract argumentation systems: preliminary report. Proceedings of the First World Conference on the Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence (eds. D. M. Gabbay and M. De Glas), pp. 501–510. Angkor, Paris.
Vreeswijk, G. (1993). Studies in defeasible argumentation. G. A. W. Vreeswijk, Amsterdam.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1995 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Verheij, B. (1995). Arguments and defeat in argument-based nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Pinto-Ferreira, C., Mamede, N.J. (eds) Progress in Artificial Intelligence. EPIA 1995. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 990. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60428-6_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60428-6_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-60428-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45595-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive