Argument-based User Support Systems using Defeasible Logic Programming

  • Carlos I. Chesñevar
  • Ana G. Maguitman
  • Guillermo R. Simari
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 204)


Over the last few years, argumentation has been gaining increasing importance in several Al-related areas, mainly as a vehicle for facilitating rationally justifiable decision making when handling incomplete and potentially inconsistent information. In this setting, user support systems can rely on argumentation techniques to automatize reasoning and decision making in several situations such as the handling of complex policies or managing change in dynamic environments. This paper presents a generic argument-based approach to characterize user support systems, in which knowledge representation and inference are captured in terms of Defeasible Logic Programming, a general-purpose defeasible argumentation formalism based on logic programming. We discuss a particular application which has emerged as an instance of this approach oriented towards providing user decision support for web search.


argumentation logic programming user support systems knowledge engineering 


  1. 1.
    C. Chesñevar, A. Maguitman, and R. Loui. Logical Models of Argument. ACM Computing Surveys, 32(4):337–383, December 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Chesñevar, A. Maguitman, and G. Simari. Argument-Based Critics and Recommenders: A Qualitative Perspective on User Support Systems. Data and Knowledge Engineering (to appear), 2005.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Chesñevar, G. Simari, and L. Godo. Computing dialectical trees efficiently in possibilis-tic defeasible logic programming. LNAI Springer Series Vol. 3662 (Proc. of the 8th Intl. Conf. on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning LPNMR 2005), pages 158–171, September 2005.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Xiaobin Fu, Jay Budzik, and Kristian J. Hammond. Mining navigation history for recom mendation. In Intelligent User Interfaces, pages 106–112, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Garcia and G. Simari. Defeasible Logic Programming: An Argumentative Approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 4(1):95–138,2004.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Governatori and A. Stranieri. Towards the application of association rules for defeasible rules discovery. In Legal Know. & Inf. Sys., pages 63–75. JURIX, IOS Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anthony Hunter. Hybrid argumentation systems for structured news reports. Knowledge Engineering Review, pages 295–329,2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Joseph A. Konstan. Introduction to recommender systems: Algorithms and evaluation. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst, 22(1):1–4,2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Middleton, D. DeRoure, and N. Shadbolt. Capturing knowledge of user preferences: Ontologies in recommender systems. In Proc. ACM K-CAP’01, Canada, 2001. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Prakken and G. Vreeswijk. Logical Systems for Defeasible Argumentation. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenther, editors, Handbook of Phil. Logic, pages 219–318. Kluwer, 2002.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. Stolzenburg, A. García, C. Chesñevar, and G. Simari. Computing Generalized Specificity. JANCL, 13(1):87–113, 2003.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bart Verheij. Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artif. Intell., 150(1–2):291–324,2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos I. Chesñevar
    • 1
  • Ana G. Maguitman
    • 2
  • Guillermo R. Simari
    • 3
  1. 1.Artificial Intelligence Research Group — Department of Computer ScienceUniversitat de LleidaLleidaSpain
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversidad Nacional del Sur Alem 1253Bahía BlancaArgentina

Personalised recommendations