On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Logic Programming
نویسنده
چکیده
The purpose of this paper is to study the fundamental mechanism humans use in argumentation and its role in different major approaches to commonsense reasoning in AI and logic programming. We present three novel results: We develop a theory for argumentation in which the acceptability of arguments is precisely defined. We show that logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning in AI are different forms of argumentation. We show that argumentation can be viewed as a special form of logic programming with negation as failure. This result introduces a general method for generating metainterpreters for argumentation systems.
منابع مشابه
On the Acceptability of Arguments and Its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and N-persons Games
The purpose of this paper is to study the fundamental mechanism, humans use in argumentation, and to explore ways to implement this mechanism on computers. We do so by first developing a theory for argumentation whose central notion is the acceptability of arguments. Then we argue for the "correctness" or "appropriateness" of our theory with two strong arguments. The first one shows that most o...
متن کاملOn the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games
The purpose of this paper is to study the fundamental mechanism, humans use in argumentation, and to explore ways to implement this mechanism on computers. We do so by first developing a theory for argumentation whose central notion is the acceptability of arguments. Then we argue for the “correctness” or “appropriateness” of our theory with two strong arguments. The first one shows that most o...
متن کاملAgents and Arguments
Argumentation Frameworks Dung s Abstract Argumentation framework * AF = (Args, Attack) where Attack Args Args Calculus of opposition applied to determine winning arguments A1 A2 A3 (publish) (not political) (political) (Args, Attack) abstracts from underlying logic based definition of Args and Attack Args = proofs of conclusions (claims) Attack = logic specific definition of conflict x * P. M. ...
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 کاملFinding Admissible and Preferred Arguments Can be Very Hard
Bondarenko et al. have recently proposed an extension of the argumentation-theoretic semantics of admissible and preferred arguments, originally proposed for logic programming only, to a number of other nonmonotonic reasoning formalisms. In this paper we analyse the computational complexity of credulous and sceptical reasoning under the semantics of admissible and preferred arguments for (the p...
متن کامل