Sequent-Based Argumentation for Normative Reasoning
نویسندگان
چکیده
In this paper we present an argumentative approach to normative reasoning. Special attention is paid to deontic conflicts, contraryto-duty and specificity cases. These are modeled by means of argumentative attacks. For this, we adopt a recently proposed framework for logical argumentation in which arguments are generated by a sequent calculus of a given base logic (see [1]), and use standard deontic logic as our base logic. Argumentative attacks are realized by elimination rules that allow to discharge specific sequents. We demonstrate our system by means of various well-known benchmark examples.
منابع مشابه
Dynamic Derivations for Sequent-Based Logical Argumentation
We introduce a general approach for representing and reasoning with argumentation-based systems. In our framework arguments are represented by Gentzen-style sequents, attacks (conflicts) between arguments are represented by sequent elimination rules, and deductions are made by dynamic proof systems. This framework accommodates different languages and logics in which arguments may be represented...
متن کاملSequent-based logical argumentation
We introduce a general approach for representing and reasoning with argumentation-based systems. In our framework arguments are represented by Gentzen-style sequents, attacks (conflicts) between arguments are represented by sequent elimination rules, and deductions are made according to Dung-style skeptical or credulous semantics. This framework accommodates different languages and logics in wh...
متن کاملPrioritized Norms in Formal Argumentation
To resolve conflicts among norms, various nonmonotonic formalisms can be used to perform prioritized normative reasoning. Meanwhile, formal argumentation provides a way to represent nonmonotonic logics. In this paper, we propose a representation of prioritized normative reasoning by argumentation. Using hierarchical abstract normative systems, we define three kinds of prioritized normative reas...
متن کاملArgumentation for Normative Reasoning
An agent’s behaviour is governed by multiple factors, including its beliefs/desires/intentions, its reasoning processes and societal influences acting upon it, such as norms. In this paper we propose an extensible argumentation inspired reasoning procedure, and show how it may be used to perform normative reasoning. . The language used by our procedure is built around defeasible, nonmonotonic r...
متن کاملCon ict-free normative agents using assumption-based argumentation
Argumentation can serve as a useful abstraction for various agent activities and in particular for agent reasoning. In this paper we further support this claim by mapping a form of normative BDI agents onto assumption-based argumentation. By way of this mapping we equip our agents with the capability of resolving con icts amongst norms, beliefs, desires and intentions. This con ict resolution i...
متن کامل