t-DeLP: A Temporal Extension of the Defeasible Logic Programming Argumentative Framework

  • Pere Pardo
  • Lluís Godo
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6929)


The aim of this paper is to offer an argumentation-based defeasible logic that enables temporal forward reasoning. We extend the DeLP logical framework by associating temporal parameters to literals. A temporal logic program is a set of temporal literals and durative rules. These temporal facts and rules combine into durative arguments representing temporal processes, that permit us to reason defeasibly about future states. The corresponding notion of logical consequence, or warrant, is defined slightly different from that of DeLP, due to the temporal aspects. As usual, this notion takes care of inconsistencies, and in particular we prove the consistency of any logical program whose strict part is consistent. Finally, we define and study a sub-class of arguments that seem appropriate to reason with natural processes, and suggest a modification to the framework that is equivalent to restricting the logic to this class of arguments.


Strict Rule Argumentation Framework Temporal Extension Defeasible Logic Defeasible Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Augusto, J., Simari, G.: Temporal Defeasible Reasoning Knowledge and Information Systems, vol. 3, pp. 287–318 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Billington, D.: Defeasible logic is stable. Journal of Logic and Computation 3, 379–400 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence 171, 286–310 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Capobianco, M., Chesñevar, C., Simari, G.: Argumentation and the Dynamics of Warranted Beliefs in Changing Environments. JAAMAS 11, 127–151 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cobo, L., Martínez, D., Simari, G.: On Admissibility in Timed Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. In: Proc. of European Conference on AI, ECAI 2010, pp. 1007–1008 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games* 1. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    García, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1+2), 95–138 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Governatori, G., Terenziani, P.: Temporal Extensions to Defeasible Logic. In: Proc. of Australian Joint Conf. on AI, AI 2007, pp. 1–10 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mann, N., Hunter, A.: Argumentation Using Temporal Knowledge. In: Proc. of Computer Models of Argumentation (COMMA 2008), pp. 204–215. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nute, D.: Defeasible Logic. In: Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 3, pp. 353–395. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pere Pardo
    • 1
  • Lluís Godo
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut d’Investigació en Intel·ligència Artificial (IIIA - CSIC)Campus UABBellaterraSpain

Personalised recommendations