Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A system for defeasible argumentation, with defeasible priorities

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Practical Reasoning (FAPR 1996)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1085))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Inspired by legal reasoning, this paper presents an argument-based system for defeasible reasoning, with a logic-programming-like language, and based on Dung's argumentation-theoretic approach to the semantics of logic programming. The language of the system has both weak and explicit negation, and conflicts between arguments are decided with the help of priorities on the rules. These priorities are not fixed, but are themselves defeasibly derived as conclusions within the system.

Henry Prakken was supported by a research fellowship of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, and by Esprit WG 8319 ‘Modelage’. The authors wish to thank Mark Ryan for his comments on an earlier version of this paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. A. Analyti and S. Pramanik, Reliable semantics for extended logic programs with rule prioritization. Journal of Logic and Computation 5 (1995), 303–324.

    Google Scholar 

  2. A. Bondarenko, F. Toni, R.A. Kowalski, An assumption-based framework for nonmonotonic reasoning. Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, MIT Press, 1993, 171–89.

    Google Scholar 

  3. G. Brewka, Reasoning about priorities in default logic. Proceedings AAAI-94, 247–260.

    Google Scholar 

  4. G. Brewka, What does a defeasible rule base with explicit prioritiy information entail? Proceedings of the second Dutch/German Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Utrecht 1995, 25–32.

    Google Scholar 

  5. P.M. Dung, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77 (1995), 321–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. P.M. Dung, An argumentation semantics for logic programming with explicit negation. Proceedings of the Tenth Logic Programming Conference, MIT Press 1993, 616–630.

    Google Scholar 

  7. H. Geffner and J. Pearl, Conditional entailment: bridging two approaches to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 53 (1992), 209–244.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. T.F. Gordon, The pleadings game: an exercise in computational dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1994, 239–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. E. Laenens and D. Vermeir, A fixed points semantics for ordered logic. Journal of Logic and Computation Vol. 1 No. 2, 1990, 159–185.

    Google Scholar 

  10. R.P. Loui, J. Norman, J. Olson, A. Merrill, A design for reasoning with policies, precedents, and rationales. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM Press, 1993, 202–211.

    Google Scholar 

  11. D. Nute, Defeasible logic. In D. Gabbay (ed.) Handbook of Logic and Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 3. Oxford University Press, 1994, 353–395.

    Google Scholar 

  12. L.M. Pereira and J.J. Alferes, Well-founded semantics for logic programs with explicit negation. Proceedings ECAI-92.

    Google Scholar 

  13. J.L. Pollock, Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11 (1987), 481–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. H. Prakken, An argumentation framework in default logic. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 9 (1993) 91–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. H. Prakken, A semantic view on reasoning about priorities (extended abstract) Proceedings of the Second Dutch/German Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Utrecht 1995, 152–159.

    Google Scholar 

  16. H. Prakken and G. Sartor, On the relation between legal language and legal argument: assumptions, applicability and dynamic priorities. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM Press 1995, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  17. G.R. Simari and R.P. Loui, A mathematical treatment of defeasible argumentation and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53 (1992), 125–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. G. Vreeswijk, Studies in defeasible argumentation. Doctoral dissertation Free University Amsterdam, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer/Law Institute, Free University, De Boelelaan, 1105, Amsterdam

    Henry Prakken

  2. CIRFID, University of Bologna, Via Galliera 3, 40121, Bologna

    Giovanni Sartor

  3. IDG-CNR, Via Panchiatichi 56/16, Firenze

    Giovanni Sartor

Authors
  1. Henry Prakken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giovanni Sartor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Dov M. Gabbay Hans Jürgen Ohlbach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Prakken, H., Sartor, G. (1996). A system for defeasible argumentation, with defeasible priorities. In: Gabbay, D.M., Ohlbach, H.J. (eds) Practical Reasoning. FAPR 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1085. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61313-7_97

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61313-7_97

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61313-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-68454-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation