2,687 research outputs found
Meta-level argumentation framework for representing and reasoning about disagreement
The contribution of this thesis is to the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI), specifically
to the sub-field called knowledge engineering. Knowledge engineering involves the
computer representation and use of the knowledge and opinions of human experts.In real world controversies, disagreements can be treated as opportunities for
exploring the beliefs and reasoning of experts via a process called argumentation.
The central claim of this thesis is that a formal computer-based framework for
argumentation is a useful solution to the problem of representing and reasoning with
multiple conflicting viewpoints.The problem which this thesis addresses is how to represent arguments in domains in
which there is controversy and disagreement between many relevant points of view.
The reason that this is a problem is that most knowledge based systems are founded in
logics, such as first order predicate logic, in which inconsistencies must be eliminated
from a
theory in order for meaningful inference to be possible from it.I argue that it is possible to devise an argumentation framework by describing one
(FORA : Framework for Opposition and Reasoning about Arguments). FORA
contains a language for representing the views of multiple experts who disagree or
have differing opinions. FORA also contains a suite of software tools which can
facilitate debate, exploration of multiple viewpoints, and construction and revision of
knowledge bases which are challenged by opposing opinions or evidence.A fundamental part of this thesis is the claim that arguments are meta-level structures
which describe the relationships between statements contained in knowledge bases. It
is important to make a clear distinction between representations in knowledge bases
(the object-level) and representations of the arguments implicit in knowledge bases
(the meta-level). FORA has been developed to make this distinction clear and its main
benefit is that the argument representations are independent of the object-level
representation language. This is useful because it facilitates integration of arguments
from multiple sources using different representation languages, and because it enables
knowledge engineering decisions to be made about how to structure arguments and
chains of reasoning, independently of object-level representation decisions.I argue that abstract argument representations are useful because they can facilitate a
variety of knowledge engineering tasks. These include knowledge acquisition;
automatic abstraction from existing formal knowledge bases; and construction, rerepresentation,
evaluation and criticism of object-level knowledge bases. Examples
of software tools contained within FORA are used to illustrate these uses of
argumentation structures. The utility of a meta-level framework for argumentation,
and FORA in particular, is demonstrated in terms of an important real world
controversy concerning the health risks of a group of toxic compounds called
aflatoxins
Formal logic: Classical problems and proofs
Not focusing on the history of classical logic, this book provides discussions and quotes central passages on its origins and development, namely from a philosophical perspective. Not being a book in mathematical logic, it takes formal logic from an essentially mathematical perspective. Biased towards a computational approach, with SAT and VAL as its backbone, this is an introduction to logic that covers essential aspects of the three branches of logic, to wit, philosophical, mathematical, and computational
On an Intuitionistic Logic for Pragmatics
We reconsider the pragmatic interpretation of intuitionistic logic [21]
regarded as a logic of assertions and their justications and its relations with classical
logic. We recall an extension of this approach to a logic dealing with assertions
and obligations, related by a notion of causal implication [14, 45]. We focus on
the extension to co-intuitionistic logic, seen as a logic of hypotheses [8, 9, 13] and on
polarized bi-intuitionistic logic as a logic of assertions and conjectures: looking at the
S4 modal translation, we give a denition of a system AHL of bi-intuitionistic logic
that correctly represents the duality between intuitionistic and co-intuitionistic logic,
correcting a mistake in previous work [7, 10]. A computational interpretation of cointuitionism
as a distributed calculus of coroutines is then used to give an operational
interpretation of subtraction.Work on linear co-intuitionism is then recalled, a linear
calculus of co-intuitionistic coroutines is dened and a probabilistic interpretation
of linear co-intuitionism is given as in [9]. Also we remark that by extending the
language of intuitionistic logic we can express the notion of expectation, an assertion
that in all situations the truth of p is possible and that in a logic of expectations
the law of double negation holds. Similarly, extending co-intuitionistic logic, we can
express the notion of conjecture that p, dened as a hypothesis that in some situation
the truth of p is epistemically necessary
The Logic of the Arguer: Representing Natural Argumentative Discourse in Adpositional Argumentation
In this paper, we show how to represent natural argumentative discourse
through Adpositional Argumentation, a uniform framework for expressing linguistic and pragmatic aspects of such discourse on various levels of abstraction.
Starting from representing the utterer and the utterance, we expand to claims
and minimal arguments, finally focusing on complex argumentation in three different structures: convergent (many premises), divergent (many conclusions),
and serial (an argument whose premise is the conclusion of another argument).
An innovative feature of the framework is that it enables the analyst to provide a granular description of natural argumentative discourse, thus letting the
logic of the arguer dynamically unfold while the discourse is presented without
enforcing any particular interpretation
- …