Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reasoning with defeasible arguments: Examples and applications

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Logics in AI (JELIA 1992)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 633))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This paper attempts to demonstrate the wide variety of characteristic properties of defeasible argumentation, of which nonmonotonicity is one. To do so, we introduce a simple formalism, called abstract argumentation system, with which we discuss different methods for raising arguments: forward reasoning, backward reasoning and, in particular, combinations thereof. Resource bounded defeasible reasoning is also briefly dealt with (the prefix ‘defeasible’ is essential here). The main goal of this paper is not to tell how this should be done, but to show how these simple procedures suddenly may change in the context of defeasible argumentation.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bylander, T., D. Allemang, M.C. Tanner, and J.R. Josephson, “Some Results Concerning the Computational Complexity of Abduction,” Proceeding of the First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'89), pp. 44–45, Morgan Kaufmann (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, T. and M. Boddy, “An Analysis of Time-Dependent Planning,” Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 49–54 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Etherington, D.W., K.D. Forbus, M.L. Ginsberg, D. Israel, and V. Lifschitz, “Critical Issues in Nonmonotonic Reasoning,” Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 500–504, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Horty, J.F. and R.H. Thomason, “Mixing Strict and Defeasible Inheritance,” Proceedings of the AAAI, pp. 427–432 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Konolige, K., A Deduction Model of Belief, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Los Altos, California (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Konolige, K., “Explanatory Belief Ascription, notes and premature formalization,” Proceedings of the Third Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge., Pacific Grove, CA, pp. 85–96, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers (March 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakemeyer, G., “On the Relation between Explicit and Implicit Belief,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'91), pp. 368–375, Morgan Kaufmann (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Levesque, H.J., “A Logic of Implicit and Explicit Belief,” Proc of the AAAI, pp. 198–202 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, F. and Y. Shoham, “Argument Systems: A Uniform Basis for Nonmonotonic Reasoning,” Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 245–255, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R.P., “Defeat Among Arguments: A System of Defeasible Inference,” Computational Intelligence3(2), pp. 100–106 (April 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • Moses, Y., “Resource-bounded Knowledge,” pp. 261–275 in Proceedings of the Second Conf. on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, ed. M.Y. Vardi, Morgan Kaufmann, Pacific Grove, California (March 7–9 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Naess, A., Communication and Argument: elements of applied semantics, George Allen and Unwin, London (1966). Translation of: En del elementaere logiske emner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nute, D., “Defeasible Reasoning and Decision Support Systems,” Decision Support Systems4(1), pp. 97–110, North-Holland (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nute, D., “Defeasible Reasoning: a philosophical analysis in PROLOG,” Aspects of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 251–288, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J.L., “Defeasible Reasoning,” Cognitive Science11, pp. 481–518 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J.L., “A Theory of Defeasible Reasoning,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems6, pp. 33–54, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, D., “Explanation and Prediction: an Architecture for Default and Abductive Reasoning,” Computational Intelligence5, pp. 97–110 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H., “A Tool in Modelling Disagreement in Law: Preferring the Most Specific Argument,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artifiical Intelligence and Law, St. Catherine's College, Oxford, England, ACM Press (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Provan, G.M., “The Computational Complexity of Assumption Based Truth Maintenance Systems,” technical report 88–11, University of British Columbia, Department of Computer Science, Vancouver B.C., Canada (July 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, N., Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge, State University of New York Press, Albany (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, N., Methodological Pragmatism: A Systems-Theoretic Approach to the Theory of Knowledge, Basil Blackwell, Oxford (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G.A.W., “Abstract Argumentation Systems: Preliminary Report,” Proceedings of the First World Conference on the Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence, Paris, pp. 501–510, Angkor (1991). A full version is to appear in Studia Logica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G.A.W., “Interpolation of Benchmark Problems in Defeasible Reasoning,” report IR-255, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (September 1991). Presented at the Second Symposium on AI and Mathematics, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G.A.W., “The Feasibility of Defeat in Defeasible Reasoning,” Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 526–534, Morgan Kaufmann Inc. (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G.A.W., “Defeasible Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach towards Defeasible Argumentation,” report IR-265, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (December 1991). To appear in The Journal of Logic and Computation

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G.A.W., “Nonmonotonicity and Partiality in Defeasible Argumentation,” pp. 157–180 in Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Partial Semantics, ed. W. van der Hoek, J.-J.Ch. Meyer, Y.H. Tan, C. Witteveen, Prentice Hall (1992).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1081a, NL-1081, HV Amsterdam

    Gerard Vreeswijk

Authors
  1. Gerard Vreeswijk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

D. Pearce G. Wagner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1992 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Vreeswijk, G. (1992). Reasoning with defeasible arguments: Examples and applications. In: Pearce, D., Wagner, G. (eds) Logics in AI. JELIA 1992. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 633. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0023429

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0023429

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-55887-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47304-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation