Fuzzy Unification and Argumentation for Well-Founded Semantics
نویسندگان
چکیده
Argumentation as metaphor for logic programming semantics is a sound basis to define negotiating agents. If such agents operate in an open system, they have to be able to negotiate and argue efficiently in a goal-directed fashion and they have to deal with uncertain and vague knowledge. In this paper, we define an argumentation framework with fuzzy unification and reasoning for the well-founded semantics to handle uncertainty. In particular, we address three main problems: how to define a goal-directed top-down proof procedure for justified arguments, which is important for agents which have to respond in realtime; how to provide expressive knowledge representation including default and explicit negation and uncertainty, which is among others part of agent communication languages such as FIPA or KQML; how to deal with reasoning in open agent systems, where agents should be able to reason despite misunderstandings. To deal with these problems, we introduce a basic argumentation framework and extend it to cope with fuzzy reasoning and fuzzy unification. For the latter case, we develop a corresponding sound and complete top-down proof procedure.
منابع مشابه
Arguments and Misunderstandings: Fuzzy Unification for Negotiating Agents
In this paper, we develop the notion of fuzzy unification and incorporate it into a novel fuzzy argumentation framework for extended logic programming. We make the following contributions: The argumentation framework is defined by a declarative bottom-up fixpoint semantics and an equivalent goal-directed top-down proof-procedure for extended logic programming. Our framework allows one to repres...
متن کاملWell-founded argumentation semantics for extended logic programming
This paper defines an argumentation semantics for extended logic programming and shows its equivalence to the well-founded semantics with explicit negation. We set up a general framework in which we extensively compare this semantics to other argumenta-tion semantics, including those of Dung, and Prakken and Sartor. We present a general dialectical proof theory for these argumenta-tion semantics.
متن کاملDefeasibility in answer set programs with defaults and argumentation rules
Defeasible reasoning has been studied extensively in the last two decades and many different and dissimilar approaches are currently on the table. This multitude of ideas has made the field hard to navigate and the different techniques hard to compare. Our earlier work on Logic Programming with Defaults and Argumentation Theories (LPDA) introduced a degree of unification into the approaches tha...
متن کاملDefeasibility in Answer Set Programs via Argumentation Theories
Defeasible reasoning has been studied extensively in the last two decades and many different and dissimilar approaches are currently on the table. This multitude of ideas has made the field hard to navigate and the different techniques hard to compare. Our earlier work on Logic Programming with Defaults and Argumentation Theories (LPDA) introduced a degree of unification into the approaches tha...
متن کاملIdeal extensions as logical programming models
We show that the ideal sets of an argumentation framework can be characterized by two kinds of logical models: ideal models (2-valued logical models) and p-stable models (2-valued logical models). We also show that the maximal ideal set of an argumentation framework can be characterized by the well-founded+ model (a 3-valued logical model). These results argue for the logical foundations of the...
متن کامل