Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards Context Sensitive Defeasible Rules

  • Conference paper
Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA 2007)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 5056))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 315 Accesses

Abstract

Defeasible argumentation systems are used to model commonsense and defeasible reasoning. Current argumentation systems assume that an argument that appears to be justified also satisfies our expectation in relation to the correct outcome, and, vice versa. In this paper we present an alternative representation of defeasible rules, tailored for argumentation based defeasible reasoning, that is free of such an assumption. We provide a mapping between our argumentation system and Dung’s abstract argumentation theory to show its efficacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 34(1-3), 197–215 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 2(2), 255–287 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Antoniou, G., Billington, D.: Relating Defeasible and Default Logic. Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2001, 13–24 (2001)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Asher, N., Pelletier, J.: Generics and Defaults. In: van Bentham, J., ter Meulen, A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic and Language 1997. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Solving Semantic Problems with Odd-Length Cycles in Argumentation. In: Nielsen, T.D., Zhang, N.L. (eds.) ECSQARU 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2711, pp. 440–451. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An Abstract, Argumentation- Theoretic Approach to Default Reasoning. Artif. Intell. 93, 63–101 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: An Axiomatic Account of Formal Argumentation. In: AAAI 2005, pp. 608–613 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chesnevar, C.I., Simari, G.R.: A Lattice-Based Approach to ComputingWarranted Beliefs in Skeptical Argumentation Frameworks. In: IJCAI 2007, pp. 280–285 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dung, P.M.: On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Dung, P.M., Son, T.C.: An argument-based approach to reasoning with specificity. Artif. Intell. 133(1-2), 35–85 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Antoniou, G., Billington, D.: Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logic. J. Log. Comput. 14(5), 675–702 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Horty, J.: Skepticism and floating conclusions. Artif. Intell. 135(1-2), 55–72 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Katzav, J., Reed, C.: On Argumentation Schemes and the Natural Classification of Arguments. Argumentation 18(2), 239–259 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. McCarthy, J.: Applications of Circumscription to Formalizing Common-Sense Knowledge. Artif. Intell. 28(1), 89–116 (1986)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Nute, D.: Defeasible Logic. In: Bartenstein, O., Geske, U., Hannebauer, M., Yoshie, O. (eds.) INAP 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2543, pp. 151–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible Reasoning. Cognitive Science 11(4), 481–518 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pollock, J.L.: Justification and Defeat. Artif. Intell. 67(2), 377–407 (1994)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification. Artif. Intell.  133(1-2), 233–282 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Poole, D.: The Effect of Knowledge on Belief: Conditioning, Specificity and the Lottery Paradox in Default Reasoning. Artif. Intell. 49(1-3), 281–307 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D.N.: Argumentation Schemes and Generalizations in Reasoning about Evidence. In: ICAIL 2003, pp. 32–41 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Quoc, B.V., Foo, N.Y., Thurbon, J.: Semantics for a theory of defeasible reasoning. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 44(1-2), 87–119 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Reed, C., Grasso, F.: Computational Models of Natural Language Argument. In: International Conference on Computational Science, vol. 1(2000), pp. 999–1008 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Reed, C., Walton, D.: Towards a Formal and Implemented Model of Argumentation Schemes in Agent Communication. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11(2), 173–188 (2005)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Reiter, R.: A Logic for Default Reasoning. Artif. Intell. 13(1-2), 81–132 (1980)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Simari, G.R., Loui, R.P.: A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation. Artif. Intell. 53(2-3), 125–157 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Verheij, B.: Accrual of arguments in defeasible argumentation. In: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Dutch/German Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pp. 217–224 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Vreeswijk, G.: Abstract Argumentation Systems. Artif. Intell. 90(1-2), 225–279 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Vreeswijk, G., Prakken, H.: Logical systems for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. 4, pp. 219–318. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wooldridge, M., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: On the meta-logic of arguments. In: AAMAS 2005, pp. 560–567 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Intelligent Systems Group, Department of Computing Division of ICS, Macquare University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia

    Armin Hezart, Abhaya Nayak & Mehmet Orgun

Authors
  1. Armin Hezart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abhaya Nayak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mehmet Orgun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computing, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Fariba Sadri

  2. National Institute of Informatics, Sokendai, Japan

    Ken Satoh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Hezart, A., Nayak, A., Orgun, M. (2008). Towards Context Sensitive Defeasible Rules. In: Sadri, F., Satoh, K. (eds) Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems. CLIMA 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5056. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88833-8_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88833-8_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-88832-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-88833-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation