Skip to main content

Eight Dialectic Benchmarks Discussed By Two Artificial Localist Disputors

Abstract

Dispute types can roughly be divided in two classes. One class in whichthe notion of justification is fundamental, and one in which thenotion of opposition is fundamental. Further, for every singledispute type there exist various types of protocols to conduct such adispute. Some protocols permit local search (a process in which oneis allowed to justify claims partially, with the possibility to extendjustifications on request later), while other protocols rely on globalsearch (a process in which only entire arguments count as justifications).This paper integrates the two above-mentioned types of dispute withthe use of a protocol that permits local search. The locality aspect isrelatively new to computer scientists, while the detailed computationalelaboration of the approach is relatively new to philosophical logicians.The proposed protocol is demonstrated with the help of eight benchmarks.These benchmarks are centered around the problem that co-concludingarguments sometimes accrue, and sometimes do not.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

REFERENCES

  1. Barth, E. and E. Krabbe: 1982, From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cohen, W. and Y. Singer: 1999, ‘Simple, Fast, and Effective Rule Learner’, in Proceedings of the AAAI-99 (To appear).

  3. de Kleer, J.: 1986, ‘An Assumption-Based TMS’, Artificial Intelligence, 28(2), 163-196.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dempster, A.: 1968, ‘A Generalization of Bayesian Inference’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 30, 205-247.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Druzdzel, M. and M. Henrion: 1993, ‘Efficient reasoning in Qualitative Probabilistic Networks’, in Proceedings of the 11th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAL93),Washington, DC, pp. 548-553.

  6. Ginsberg, M. (ed.): 1987, Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gonzalez, A. and D. Dankel: 1993, The Engineering of Knowledge-based Systems: Theory and Practice, Prentice Hall, Englewoods Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gordon, T. et al.: 1996, ‘The Zeno argumentation Framework’, in Proceedings of the Computational Dialectics Workshop, at FAPR Bonn. GMD. Hypertext document.

  9. Hamblin, C.: 1970, Fallacies, Methuen, London.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jensen, F. V.: 1996, An Introduction to Bayesian Networks, UCL Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kivinen, J. et al.: 1992, ‘Learning Hierarchical Rule Sets’, in Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, pp. 37-44.

  12. Krabbe, E.: 1985, ‘Formal Systems of Dialogue Rules’, Synthese 63, 295-328.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Krabbe, E.: 2000, ‘The Problem of Retraction in Critical Discussion’, this Volume.

  14. Lifschitz, V.: 1988, ‘Benchmark Problems for Formal Nonmonotonic Reasoning, version 2.00’, in M. R. et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Second Workshop in Non-monotonic Reasoning, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer Verlag, Grassau, FRG, pp. 202-219.

  15. Loui, R.: 1989, ‘Benchmark Problems for Nonmonotonic Systems’, Handout. Distributed at the Workshop on Defeasible Reasoning with Specificity and Multiple Inheritance.

  16. Loui, R.: 1991, ‘Argument and Belief: Were We Stand in the Keynesian Tradition’, Minds and Machines 1, 357-365.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Loui, R.: 1994, ‘Argument and Arbitration Games’, in R. Jioni and T. Gordon (eds), Notes of the Computational Dialectics Workshop '94 at AAAI94, St. Louis. Dept. of CS, Washington University, pp. 72-83.

  18. Loui, R.: 1998, ‘Process and Policy: Resource-Bounded Nondemonstrative Reasoning’, Computational Intelligence 14(1), 1-38.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Loui, R., J. Norman, J. Olson, and A. Merrill: 1993, ‘A Design for Reasoning with Policies, Precedents, and Rationales’, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on AI & Law, ACM Press, New-York, pp. 202-211. Also issued as report WUCS-93-03, Department of Computer Science, Washington University St. Louis, Missouri.

    Google Scholar 

  20. McGraw, K. and K. Harbison-Briggs: 1989, Knowledge Acquisition: Principles and Guidelines, Prentice-Hall, New-York.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mitchell, T.: 1997, Machine Learning, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Parsons, S.: 1998, ‘A Proof Theoretic Approach to Qualitative Probabilistic Reasoning’, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 19, 265-297.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pearl, J.: 1988, Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference, Morgan Kaufmann, Palo Alto CA.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pollock, J.: 1995, Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Pollock, J.: 1996, Implementing Defeasible Reasoning. Presented at the Computational Dialectic Workshop, at FAPR'96, June 3-7, 1996, Bonn. Cf. http://nathan.gmd.de/projects/zeno/fapr/programme.ht ml.

  26. Prakken, H.: 1999, ‘On Formalising Burden of Proof in Legal Argument’, in Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Legal Knowledge-Based Systems (JURIX'99), Leuven, Belgium, pp. 85-97.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Prakken, H.: 2000, ‘Relating Protocols for Dynamic Dispute with Logics for Defeasible Argumentation’, this issue.

  28. Prakken, H. and G. Sartor: 1997, ‘Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities’, Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7, 25-75.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Reinfrank, M.: 1989, ‘Logical Foundations of Truth Maintenance’, in J. Martins and E. Morgado (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Portugese Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 348-361.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Reiter, R.: 1987, ‘Non-Monotonic Reasoning’, Annual Reviews of Computer Science 2, 147-186.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Reiter, R. and J. de Kleer: 1987, ‘Foundations of Assumption-Based Truth Maintenance Systems’, in Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp.183-188.

  32. Rescher, N.: 1977, Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge, State University of New York Press, Albany.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Shafer, G.: 1976, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Simari, G. and R. Loui: 1992, ‘A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation’, Artificial Intelligence 53,125-157.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Stefik, M.: 1995, Introduction to Knowledge Systems, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Thagard, P.: 1992, Conceptual Revolutions, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Paperback edition, 1993. Italian translation published by Guerini e Associati, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Toulmin, S.: 1985, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press.

  38. Verbeurgt, K. and P. Thagard: 1998, ‘Coherence as Constraint Satisfaction’, Cognitive Science 22, 1-24.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Verheij, H.: 1995, ‘Accrual of Arguments in Defeasible Argumentation’, in C. Witteveen, W. van der Hoek, J.-J. C. Meyer and B. van Linder (eds), Proceedings of the 2nd Dutch/German Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Utrecht, pp. 217-224.

  40. Verheij, H.: 1996, Rules, Reasons, Arguments: Formal studies of Argumentation and Defeat, Department of Metajuridica, University of Limburg, Maastricht, the Netherlands. dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Verheij, H. et al.: 1998, ‘An Integrated Viewon Rules and Principles’, Artificial Intelligence and Law 6(1), 3-26.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Vreeswijk, G.: 1995a, ‘IACAS: An Implementation of Chisholm's Principles of Knowledge’, in C. Witteveen, W. van der Hoek, J.-J. C. Meyer and B. van Linder (eds), The Proceedings of the 2nd Dutch/German Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Delft University of Technology, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, pp. 225-234.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Vreeswijk, G.: 1995b, ‘Interpolation of Benchmark Problems in Defeasible Reasoning’, in M. DeGlas (ed.), Proceedings of the Second World Conference on the Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence, Angkor, Paris, pp. 453-468. Formerly presented at the Second Symposium on Al and Mathematics, 1992, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Vreeswijk, G.: 1999, ‘Searching for a Computational Heuristic to Expand Formal Theories’, Tech. rep., University of Groningen, Department of Philosophy.

  45. Vreeswijk, G.: 2000, ‘Representation of Formal Dispute with a Standing Order’, in Al & Law, special issue ‘Dialectical Legal Argument: Formal and Informal Models’, Vol. 8, Nos. 2/3, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 203-230.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Walton, D. and E. Krabbe: 1995, Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning, Vol. 90. State University of New York Press.

  47. Wellman, M.: 1990, ‘Fundamental Concepts of Qualitative Probabilistic Networks’, Artificial Intelligence 44, 257-303.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Woods, J. and D. Walton: 1982, Argument: The Logic of the Fallacies, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vreeswijk, G.A.W. Eight Dialectic Benchmarks Discussed By Two Artificial Localist Disputors. Synthese 127, 221–253 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010374523108

Download citation

Keywords

  • Computer Scientist
  • Local Search
  • Locality Aspect
  • Artificial Localist
  • Entire Argument