Abstract
Two important notions within the field of classical argumentation are undercutting defeaters and backings. The former represent an attack to an inference step, and the latter intend to provide defense against this type of attack. Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) is a concrete argumentation system that allows to identify arguments whose conclusions or intermediate conclusions are in contradiction, capturing the notion of rebutting defeater. Nevertheless, in DeLP is not possible to represent neither undercutting defeaters nor backings. The aim of this work is to extend the formalism of DeLP to allow attack and support for defeasible rules. Thus, it will be possible to build arguments for representing undercutting defeaters and backings.
Partially supported by UNS (PGI 24/ZN18) and CONICET (PIP 112-200801-02798).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence 171(5-6), 286–310 (2007)
Cohen, A., Garcia, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Extending DeLP with attack and support for defeasible rules. In: Kuri-Morales, A., Simari, G.R. (eds.) IBERAMIA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6433, pp. 90–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)
García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1-2), 95–138 (2004)
Lifschitz, V.: Foundations of logic programs. In: Brewka, G. (ed.) Principles of Knowledge Representation, pp. 69–128. CSLI Pub., Stanford (1996)
Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 173(9-10), 901–934 (2009)
Nute, D.: Defeasible reasoning: a philosophical analysis in prolog. In: Fetzer, J.H. (ed.) Aspects of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 251–288. Kluwer Academic Pub., Dordrecht (1988)
Nute, D.: Defeasible logic. In: Gabbay, D., Hogger, C., Robinson, J.A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 3, pp. 355–395. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1994)
Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11(4), 481–518 (1987)
Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation 1, 93–124 (2009)
Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 4, pp. 218–319. Kluwer Academic Pub., Dordrecht (2002)
Toulmin, S.E.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1958)
Verheij, B.: Deflog: On the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 319–346 (2003)
Verheij, B.: Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin’s scheme. Argumentation 19(3), 347–371 (2005)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Cohen, A., García, A.J., Simari, G.R. (2011). Backing and Undercutting in Defeasible Logic Programming. In: Liu, W. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6717. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22152-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22152-1_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-22151-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-22152-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)