On the use of contexts for representing knowledge in defeasible argumentation

The notion of context and its importance in knowledge representation and nonmonotonic reasoning was first discussed in Artificial Intelligence by John McCarthy. Ever since, contexts have found many applications in developing knowledge-based reasoning systems. Defeasible argumentation has gained wide acceptance within the Al community in the last years. Different argument-based frameworks have been proposed. In this respect, MTDR (Simari & Loui, 1992) has come to be one of the most successful. However, even though the formalism is theoretically sound, there exist sorne dialectical considerations involving argument construction and the inference mechanism, which impose a rather procedural approach, tightly interlocked with the system's logic. This paper discusses different uses of contexts for modelling the process of defeasible argumentation. We present an alternative view of MTDR using contexts. Our approach will allow us to discuss novel issues in MTDR, such as defining a set of moves and introducting an arbiter for regulating inference. As a result, protocols for argument generation as well as some technical considerations for speeding up inference will be kept apart from the logical machinery underlying MTDR.Eje: 2do. Workshop sobre aspectos teóricos de la inteligencia artificialRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Intuitions and the modelling of defeasible reasoning: some case studies

The purpose of this paper is to address some criticisms recently raised by John Horty in two articles against the validity of two commonly accepted defeasible reasoning patterns, viz. reinstatement and floating conclusions. I shall argue that Horty's counterexamples, although they significantly raise our understanding of these reasoning patterns, do not show their invalidity. Some of them reflect patterns which, if made explicit in the formalisation, avoid the unwanted inference without having to give up the criticised inference principles. Other examples seem to involve hidden assumptions about the specific problem which, if made explicit, are nothing but extra information that defeat the defeasible inference. These considerations will be put in a wider perspective by reflecting on the nature of defeasible reasoning principles as principles of justified acceptance rather than `real' logical inference.Comment: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR'2002), Toulouse, France, April 19-21, 200

Large-scale Parallel Stratified Defeasible Reasoning

We are recently experiencing an unprecedented explosion of available data from the Web, sensors readings, scientific databases, government authorities and more. Such datasets could benefit from the introduction of rule sets encoding commonly accepted rules or facts, application- or domain-specific rules, commonsense knowledge etc. This raises the question of whether, how, and to what extent knowledge representation methods are capable of handling huge amounts of data for these applications. In this paper, we consider inconsistency-tolerant reasoning in the form of defeasible logic, and analyze how parallelization, using the MapReduce framework, can be used to reason with defeasible rules over huge datasets. We extend previous work by dealing with predicates of arbitrary arity, under the assumption of stratification. Moving from unary to multi-arity predicates is a decisive step towards practical applications, e.g. reasoning with linked open (RDF) data. Our experimental results demonstrate that defeasible reasoning with millions of data is performant, and has the potential to scale to billions of facts

A Plausibility Semantics for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks

We propose and investigate a simple ranking-measure-based extension semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks based on their generic instantiation by default knowledge bases and the ranking construction semantics for default reasoning. In this context, we consider the path from structured to logical to shallow semantic instantiations. The resulting well-justified JZ-extension semantics diverges from more traditional approaches.Comment: Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2014). This is an improved and extended version of the author's ECSQARU 2013 pape

A structured argumentation framework for detaching conditional obligations

We present a general formal argumentation system for dealing with the detachment of conditional obligations. Given a set of facts, constraints, and conditional obligations, we answer the question whether an unconditional obligation is detachable by considering reasons for and against its detachment. For the evaluation of arguments in favor of detaching obligations we use a Dung-style argumentation-theoretical semantics. We illustrate the modularity of the general framework by considering some extensions, and we compare the framework to some related approaches from the literature.Comment: This is our submission to DEON 2016, including the technical appendi

Choosing Your Nonmonotonic Logic: A Shopper’s Guide

The paper presents an exhaustive menu of nonmonotonic logics. The options are individuated in terms of the principles they reject. I locate, e.g., cumulative logics and relevance logics on this menu. I highlight some frequently neglected options, and I argue that these neglected options are particularly attractive for inferentialists