Argumentation and rules with exceptions
نویسنده
چکیده
Models of argumentation often take a given set of rules or conditionals as a starting point. Arguments to support or attack a position are then built from these rules. In this paper, an attempt is made to develop constraints on rules and their exceptions in such a way that they correspond exactly to arguments that successfully support their conclusions. The constraints take the form of properties of nonmonotonic consequence relations, similar to the ones that have been studied for cumulative inference.
منابع مشابه
Collaborative diagnosis of exceptions to contracts
Exceptions constitute a great deal of autonomous process execution. In order to resolve an exception, several participants should collaborate and exchange knowledge. We believe that argumentation technologies lend themselves very well to be used in this context, both for elaborating on possible causes of exceptions, and for exchanging the result of such elaboration. We propose an open and modul...
متن کاملWUENIC - A Case Study in Rule-Based Knowledge Representation and Reasoning
WUENIC is a rule-based system implemented as a logic program, developed by WHO and UNICEF for estimating global, country by country, infant immunization coverage. It possesses many of the characteristics of rulebased legislation, facilitating decisions that are consistent, transparent and replicable. In this paper, we focus on knowledge representation and problemsolving issues, including the us...
متن کاملDefeasible AceRules: A Prototype
The paper adapts the syntax of the AceRules system, an existing controlled natural language (CNL), and pipes the resulting output rules to a defeasible inference engine. With this, we can represent and reason with knowledge bases (KB) with strict and defeasible rules. For strict rules, the consequent of a strict rule must hold if the premises hold; for a defeasible rule, the consequent of a def...
متن کاملThe Carneades Argumentation Framework - Using Presumptions and Exceptions to Model Critical Questions
We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, called the Carneades Argumentation Framework, which applies proof standards [5] to determine the defensibility of arguments and the acceptability of statements on an issue-by-issue basis. Carneades uses three kinds of premises (ordinary premises, presumptions and exceptions) and information about the dialectical statu...
متن کاملWarranted Derivations of Preferred Answer
We are aiming at a semantics of logic programs with preferences defined on rules, which always selects a preferred answer set, if there is a non-empty set of (standard) answer sets of the given program. It is shown in a seminal paper by Brewka and Eiter that the goal mentioned above is incompatible with their second principle and it is not satisfied in their semantics of prioritized logic progr...
متن کامل