Reasoning dynamically about what one says

نویسندگان

  • Nicholas Asher
  • Alex Lascarides
چکیده

In this paper we make SDRT’s glue logic for computing logical form dynamic. This allows a dialogue agent to anticipate what the update of the semantic representation of the dialogue would be after his next contribution, including the effects of the rhetorical moves that he is contemplating performing next. This is a pre-requisite for planning what to say next. We make the glue logic dynamic by extending a dynamic public announcement logic (PAL) with the capacity to perform default reasoning—an essential component of inferring the pragmatic effects of one’s dialogue moves. We add to the PAL language a new type of announcement, known as ceteris paribus announcement, and this is used to model how an agent anticipates the default consequences of his next dialogue move. Our extended PAL validates more intuitively compelling patterns of default inference than existing PALs for practical reaosning, and we demonstrate via the proof of reduction axioms that the dynamic glue logic, like its static version, remains decidable.

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

What definition of information would be emancipatory one?

Background and Aim: Human-information interaction, either in every day life or in research approaches, depends on pre-assumptions about “what information is”. Sometimes this pre-assumptions become axiomtic in a way that we must return to primary concerns about them to explore new social phenomenas. Information as an object is one of pre-assumptions. In this paper, the mentioned pre-assumptions ...

متن کامل

1285 What Are Feature Interactions ?

Manufacturing features and their interactions have become areas of research scrutiny in recent years. It is widely accepted that intelligent reasoning about interactions among features is a critical element in the development of systems for automated manufacturing. Conversely, however, there has not emerged any general consensus as to what features are, how they are de ned, and what it means wh...

متن کامل

Addressing Argumentation Puzzles with Model-based Diagnosis

In law, and, consequently, in AI & Law, argumentation, scenario-modeling, and the combination of both, are the traditional ways of theorizing about judicial reasoning and legal truth, while probabilistic reasoning has traditionally been treated with suspicion2. Nevertheless, because of the growing relevance of forensic scientific evidence, a proper integration of probabilistic reasoning into th...

متن کامل

Review of Paul Grice, Aspects of Reason

Aspects of Reason offers a sketch of parts of an ambitious project to derive important philosophical consequences from the idea of a rational being, with hopes of improving on Aristotle and Kant. Jonathan Dancy offers a good account and critique of this project.1 In this review, I will mention and discuss some important things that Grice says along the way about what reasoning is, what reasons ...

متن کامل

Reasoning with Inconsistent Causal Beliefs

Causal reasoning is a critical part of everyday cognition. We ask how people reason about causes when faced with inconsistent sources of knowledge. Causal models arise from multiple sources of information regarding their constituent parameters. Knowledge sources may be inconsistent both within parameters (when one source says a variable should appear often and another says it should appear rare...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:
  • Synthese

دوره 183  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2011