Prioritised Default Logic as Rational Argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
We endow Brewka’s prioritised default logic (PDL) with argumentation semantics using the ASPIC framework for structured argumentation. We prove that the conclusions of the justified arguments correspond to the prioritised default extensions in a normatively rational manner. Argumentation semantics for PDL will allow for the application of argument game proof theories to the process of inference in PDL, making the reasons for accepting a conclusion transparent and the inference process more intuitive. This also opens up the possibility for argumentation-based distributed reasoning and communication amongst agents with PDL representations of mental attitudes.
منابع مشابه
Argumentation Semantics for Prioritised Default Logic
We endow prioritised default logic (PDL) with argumentation semantics using the ASPIC framework for structured argumentation, and prove that the conclusions of the justified arguments are exactly the prioritised default extensions. Argumentation semantics for PDL will allow for the application of argument game proof theories to the process of inference in PDL, making the reasons for accepting a...
متن کاملPrioritised Default Logic as Argumentation with Partial Order Default Priorities
We express Brewka’s prioritised default logic (PDL) as argumentation using ASPIC. By representing PDL as argumentation and designing an argument preference relation that takes the argument structure into account, we prove that the conclusions of the justified arguments correspond to the PDL extensions. We will first assume that the default priority is total, and then generalise to the case wher...
متن کاملEmbedding default logic in propositional argumentation systems
In this paper we present a transformation of finite propositional default theories into socalled propositional argumentation systems. This transformation allows to characterize all notions of Reiter’s default logic in the framework of argumentation systems. As a consequence, computing extensions, or determining wether a given formula belongs to one extension or all extensions can be answered wi...
متن کاملLogic program semantcs via an argumentation semantics
There are various semantics designed for argumentation frameworks. They enable to assign a meaning e.g. to odd-length cycles. Our main motivation is to transfer semantics proposed by Baroni, Giacomin and Guida for argumentation frameworks with odd-length cycles to logic programs with odd-length cycles through default negation. The developed construction is even stronger. For a given logic progr...
متن کاملOn the theory of argumentation frameworks
argumentation has been developed in a theoretical way, in noteworthy works such as [Tou58], [Fel84], [Dun95], [KT96], [BDKT97], [KMD94], [Pol94], [Vre97], [PS96a], [PS97], and [Ver96]. Argumentation-theoretic interpretations and proof-procedures are applicable in practical reasoning, legal reasoning ([KT96], [PS95]), mediation systems ([GK96], [BG94]), decision-making systems ([KPG96]), and are...
متن کامل