Relations between assumption-based approaches in nonmonotonic logic and formal argumentation

نویسندگان

  • Jesse Heyninck
  • Christian Straßer
چکیده

In this paper we make a contribution to the unification of formal models of defeasible reasoning. We present several translations between formal argumentation frameworks and nonmonotonic logics for reasoning with plausible assumptions. More specifically, we translate adaptive logics into assumption-based argumentation and ASPIC, ASPIC into assumption-based argumentation and a fragment of assumption-based argumentation into adaptive logics. Adaptive logics are closely related to Makinson’s default assumptions and to a significant class of systems within the tradition of preferential semantics in the vein of KLM and Shoham. Thus, our results also provide close links between formal argumentation and the latter approaches.

برای دانلود 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

Abstract Rule-Based Argumentation

Rule-Based Argumentation Sanjay Modgil, Henry Prakken abstract. This chapter reviews abstract rule-based approaches to argumentation, in particular the ASPIC framework. In ASPIC and its This chapter reviews abstract rule-based approaches to argumentation, in particular the ASPIC framework. In ASPIC and its predecessors, going back to the seminal work of John Pollock, arguments can be formed by ...

متن کامل

Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Argumentation and Machine Learning

Machine learning and nonmonotonic reasoning are closely related, both concerned with making plausible as well as certain inferences based on available data. In this document a brief overview of diierent approaches to nonmonotonic reasoning is presented , and it is shown how the concept of argumentation systems arises. The relationship with machine learning work is also discussed. The document a...

متن کامل

Argumentation for Propositional Logic and Nonmonotonic Reasoning

Argumentation has played a significant role in understanding and unifying under a common framework different forms of defeasible reasoning in AI. Argumentation is also close to the original inception of logic as a framework for formalizing human argumentation and debate. In this context, the purpose of this paper is twofold: to draw a formal connection between argumentation and classical reason...

متن کامل

From systems for defeasible argumentation to dialogical systems of argumentation

Nonmonotonic reasoning is a reasoning in which temporary conclusions can be drawn on the basis of incomplete information but which might be withdrawn when more information becomes available. Systems for defeasible argumentation capture this kind of reasoning in terms of interactions between conflictual arguments. Nonmonotonic reasoning is explained in terms of defeasibility since arguments can ...

متن کامل

A short introduction to two approaches in formal verification of security protocols: model checking and theorem proving

In this paper, we shortly review two formal approaches in verification of security protocols; model checking and theorem proving. Model checking is based on studying the behavior of protocols via generating all different behaviors of a protocol and checking whether the desired goals are satisfied in all instances or not. We investigate Scyther operational semantics as n example of this...

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

برای دانلود 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

عنوان ژورنال:
  • CoRR

دوره abs/1604.00162  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2016