Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

ModelAge Workshop on Formal Models of Agents

ModelAge 1997: Formal Models of Agents pp 202–215Cite as

Dialectical proof theory for defeasible argumentation with defeasible priorities (preliminary report)

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1760))

Abstract

In this paper a dialectical proof theory is proposed for logical systems for defeasible argumentation that fit a certain format. This format is the abstract theory developed by Dung, Kowalski and others. A main feature of the proof theory is that it also applies to systems in which reasoning about the standards for comparing arguments is possible. The proof theory could serve as the ‘logical core’ of protocols for dispute in multi-agent decision making processes.

The research reported in this paper was made possible by a research fellowship of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, and by Esprit WG 8319 ‘Modelage’.

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

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. E.M. Barth and E.C.W. Krabbe. From Axiom to Dialogue: a Philosophical Study of Logic and Argumentation. Walter de Gruyter, New York, 1982.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. A. Bondarenko, P.M. Dung, R.A. Kowalski and F. Toni. An abstract argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Technical Report Department of Computing, Imperial College London, 1995. Also to appear in Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  4. G. Brewka. A reconstruction of Rescher’s theory of formal disputation based on default logic. Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 366–370.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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 

  6. P.M. Dung. Logic programming as dialogue game. Unpublished paper.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. T.F. Gordon. The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J.C. Hage. Reasoning With Rules. An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic. Kluwer Law and Philosophy Library, Dordrecht etc. 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  10. R.P. Loui. Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Report WUCS-92-43, Washington-University-in-St-Louis, 1993. To appear in Computational Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

  11. R.P. Loui and J. Norman. Rationales and argument moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law 3: 159–189, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 

  14. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A system for defeasible argumentation, with defeasible priorities. Proceedings of the Lnternational Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning (FAPR’96), Bonn 1996. Springer Lecture Notes in AI 1085, Springer Verlag, 1996, 510–524.

    Google Scholar 

  15. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (1996), 331–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. To appear in Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  17. N. Rescher. Dialectics: a controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  18. L. Royakkers and F. Dignum. Defeasible reasoning with legal rules. In M.A. Brown and J. Carmo (eds.) Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems. Springer, Workshops in Computing, London etc. 1996, 174–193.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  21. G. Vreeswijk. Defeasible dialectics: a controversy-oriented approach towards defeasible argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation, 1993, Vol. 3, No. 3., 317–334.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. G. Vreeswijk. Representation of formal dispute with a standing order. Research Report MATRIX, University of Limburg, 1996. Also presented at the Workshop Computational Dialectics of the International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning (FAPR’96), Bonn 1996.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hoptille 46, 1102 PN, Amsterdam

    Henry Prakken

Authors
  1. Henry Prakken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Utrecht University, Padualaan 14, De Uithof, 3508 TB, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    John-Jules Ch. Meyer

  2. Institut d’Informatique, Rue Grandgagnage 21, 5000, Namur, Belgium

    Pierre-Yves Schobbens

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Prakken, H. (1999). Dialectical proof theory for defeasible argumentation with defeasible priorities (preliminary report). In: Meyer, JJ.C., Schobbens, PY. (eds) Formal Models of Agents. ModelAge 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1760. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46581-2_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46581-2_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-67027-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46581-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation