Skip to main content

Computing Dialectical Trees Efficiently in Possibilistic Defeasible Logic Programming

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 3662))

Abstract

Possibilistic Defeasible Logic Programming (P-DeLP) is a logic programming language which combines features from argumentation theory and logic programming, incorporating as well the treatment of possibilistic uncertainty and fuzzy knowledge at object-language level. Solving a P-DeLP query Q accounts for performing an exhaustive analysis of arguments and defeaters for Q, resulting in a so-called dialectical tree, usually computed in a depth-first fashion. Computing dialectical trees efficiently in P-DeLP is an important issue, as some dialectical trees may be computationally more expensive than others which lead to equivalent results. In this paper we explore different aspects concerning how to speed up dialectical inference in P-DeLP. We introduce definitions which allow to characterize dialectical trees constructively rather than declaratively, identifying relevant features for pruning the associated search space. The resulting approach can be easily generalized to be applied in other argumentation frameworks based in logic programming.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G., Alsinet, T., Godo, L.: A Logic Programming Framework for Possibilistic Argumentation with Vague Knowledge. In: Proc. of the Intl. Conf. in Uncertainty in Art. Intelligence (UAI 2004), Banff, Canada, pp. 76–84 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alsinet, T., Godo, L.: A complete calculus for possibilistic logic programming with fuzzy propositional variables. In: Proc. of the UAI 2000 Conference, pp. 1–10 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dubois, D., Lang, J., Prade, H.: Possibilistic logic. In: Gabbay, D., Hogger, C., Robinson, J. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Art. Int. and Logic Prog (Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Uncertain Reasoning), pp. 439–513. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kakas, A., Toni, F.: Computing argumentation in logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming 9, 515–562 (1999)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Chesñevar, C.I., Maguitman, A., Loui, R.: Logical Models of Argument. ACM Computing Surveys 32, 337–383 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logical Systems for Defeasible Argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenther, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, pp. 219–318. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence 1(2), 203–235 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7, 25–75 (1997)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. García, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible Logic Programming: An Argumentative Approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4, 95–138 (2004)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Gómez, S., Chesñevar, C.: A Hybrid Approach to Pattern Classification Using Neural Networks and Defeasible Argumentation. In: Proc. of 17th Intl. FLAIRS Conf. Miami, Florida, USA, pp. 393–398. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A.: An Argumentative Approach to Assessing Natural Language Usage based on the Web Corpus. In: Proc. of the ECAI 2004 Conference, Valencia, Spain, pp. 581–585 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Prakken, H.: Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese (special issue on New Perspectives in Dialogical Logic) 127, 187–219 (2001)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Brewka, G.: Dynamic argument systems: A formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. J. of Logic and Computation 11, 257–282 (2001)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Hunter, A.: Towards Higher Impact Argumentation. In: Proc. of the 19th American National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2004), pp. 275–280. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chesñevar, C., Simari, G., Godo, L., Alsinet, T.: Argument-based expansion operators in possibilistic defeasible logic programming: Characterization and logical properties. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 353–365. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G.R., Godo, L. (2005). Computing Dialectical Trees Efficiently in Possibilistic Defeasible Logic Programming. In: Baral, C., Greco, G., Leone, N., Terracina, G. (eds) Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. LPNMR 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3662. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11546207_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11546207_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-28538-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31827-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics