Argumentative Reasoning Theory: Explanation Aware Knowledge Representation
نویسنده
چکیده
Argumentative Reasoning Theory (ART) is a theory of knowledge representation, reasoning, explanation, and argument interaction. It is designed to support intelligent human-computer collaboration. ART provides the ability to represent reasoning in a form that is computable, intuitive, and amenable to discovery. By integrating Toulmin’s model of argumentation, Mann and Thompson’s Rhetorical Structure Theory, and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s strategic forms of associative and dissociative reasoning, ART defines an ontology for representing and manipulating of argument structures. Arguments, when satisfied, are instantiated into a dynamic rhetorical network that represents the system’s model of the situation. Two modalities of instantiation are used: inferential instantiation is used when the claim is inferred from the ground; synthetic instantiation is used for descriptive argumentation where both ground and claim must be satisfied for the argument to be instantiated. The instantiation process maps arguments into the network using interaction links. Links are defined for a range interactions, including accrual, concomitance, backing, substantiation, dissociation, rebuttal, undercut, and confusion. Interaction detection may be accomplished using logical, ontological, and inventivedissociative detection. Knowledge discovery is supported through logical and analogical means. Through ontologically normalized representation of argumentative knowledge, it becomes possible to detect the opportunity for analogical discovery.
منابع مشابه
A Discourse Approach to Explanation Aware Knowledge Representation
This study describes a discourse approach to explanation aware knowledge representation. It presents a reasoning model that adheres to argumentation as found in written discourse, intended for use in intelligent human-computer collaboration and inter-agent deliberation. The approach integrates the Toulmin model with Rhetorical Structure Theory and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s (1958) strategi...
متن کاملLinked and Convergent Structures in Discourse-Based Reasoning
Explanation and argumentation are fundamental to reasoning. They are therefore of some importance to artificial intelligence. Discourse-based reasoning (DBR) is a knowledge representation technology that uses natural patterns of discourse as a basis for a structural ontology of explanatory and argumentative reasoning. By this means, we may ontologize the reasoning process itself, thus rendering...
متن کاملGenerating Discourse-Based Explanations
Humans and artificial agents need to be able to explain themselves to one another. They need to be able to present their perspectives and assess the views of others. This paper describes an approach to explanation aware reasoning, using underlying structures of natural discourse and argumentation theory. By positioning argumentation, explanation, and defeasibility concepts as first-class ontolo...
متن کاملExplaining Answer Set Programming in Argumentative Terms
Argumentation Theory and Answer Set Programming (ASP) are two prominent theories in the field of knowledge representation and non-monotonic reasoning, where Argumentation Theory stands for a variety of approaches following similar ideas. The main difference between Argumentation Theory and ASP is that the former focusses on representing knowledge and reasoning about it in a way that resembles h...
متن کاملPrecompiled knowledge support for dynamic argumentation
Argumentative formalisms have been widely recognized as knowledge representation and reasoning tools able to deal with incomplete and potentially contradictory information. All such formalisms are computationally demanding. Hence, optimizing argumentative systems has been approached from di®erent views. We have developed a new proposal to solve the aforementioned problem. The key to our approac...
متن کامل