Practical First-Order Argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
There are many frameworks for modelling argumentation in logic. They include a formal representation of individual arguments and techniques for comparing conflicting arguments. A problem with these proposals is that they do not consider arguments for and against first-order formulae. We present a framework for first-order logic argumentation based on argument trees that provide a way of exhaustively collating arguments and counter-arguments. A difficulty with first-order argumentation is that there may be many arguments and counterarguments even with a relatively small knowledgebase. We propose rationalizing the arguments under consideration with the aim of reducing redundancy and highlighting key points.
منابع مشابه
Practical argumentation semantics for socially efficient defeasible consequence
An abstract argumentation framework and the semantics, often called Dungean semantics, give a general framework for nonmonotonic logics. In the last fifteen years, a great number of papers in computational argumentation adopt Dungean semantics as a fundamental principle for evaluating various kinds of defeasible consequences. Recently, many papers address problems not only with theoretical reas...
متن کاملValue-based Practical Reasoning
CRRAR Surely one of the most important contributions of Trevor Bench-Capon to computer science, and especially to artificial intelligence and law, and for that matter to argumentation theory and cognitive science generally, is the model of value-based practical reasoning he has given us. He introduced value-based argumentation frameworks (VAF's) in (Bench-Capon, 2002; Bench-Capon, 2002a; Bench-...
متن کاملArgumentative alternating offers
This paper presents an argumentative version of the well known alternating offers negotiation protocol. The negotiation mechanism is based on an abstract preference based argumentation framework where both epistemic and practical arguments are taken into consideration in order to decide about different strategic issues. Such issues are the offer that is proposed at each round, acceptance or ref...
متن کاملA Compact Argumentation System for Agent System Specification
We present a non-monotonic logic tailored for specifying compact autonomous agent systems. The language is a consistent instantiation of a logic based argumentation system extended with Brooks’ subsumption concept and varying degree of belief. Particulary, we present a practical implementation of the language by developing a meta-encoding method that translates logical specifications into compa...
متن کاملOn the construction of joint plans through argumentation schemes
The term Multi-Agent Planning (MAP) refers to any kind of planning in domains in which several independent entities (agents) plan and act together. Recently, a number of attempts have used argumentation to handle the issue of selecting the best actions for an agent to do in a given situation [4]. Particularly, there have been proposals to apply argumentation theory to planning, for dealing with...
متن کامل