1,179 research outputs found
A Framework for Combining Defeasible Argumentation with Labeled Deduction
In the last years, there has been an increasing demand of a variety of
logical systems, prompted mostly by applications of logic in AI and other
related areas. Labeled Deductive Systems (LDS) were developed as a flexible
methodology to formalize such a kind of complex logical systems. Defeasible
argumentation has proven to be a successful approach to formalizing commonsense
reasoning, encompassing many other alternative formalisms for defeasible
reasoning. Argument-based frameworks share some common notions (such as the
concept of argument, defeater, etc.) along with a number of particular features
which make it difficult to compare them with each other from a logical
viewpoint. This paper introduces LDSar, a LDS for defeasible argumentation in
which many important issues concerning defeasible argumentation are captured
within a unified logical framework. We also discuss some logical properties and
extensions that emerge from the proposed framework.Comment: 15 pages, presented at CMSRA Workshop 2003. Buenos Aires, Argentin
Reasoning about exceptions in ontologies: from the lexicographic closure to the skeptical closure
Reasoning about exceptions in ontologies is nowadays one of the challenges
the description logics community is facing. The paper describes a preferential
approach for dealing with exceptions in Description Logics, based on the
rational closure. The rational closure has the merit of providing a simple and
efficient approach for reasoning with exceptions, but it does not allow
independent handling of the inheritance of different defeasible properties of
concepts. In this work we outline a possible solution to this problem by
introducing a variant of the lexicographical closure, that we call skeptical
closure, which requires to construct a single base. We develop a bi-preference
semantics semantics for defining a characterization of the skeptical closure
Defeasible Logic Programming: An Argumentative Approach
The work reported here introduces Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP), a
formalism that combines results of Logic Programming and Defeasible
Argumentation. DeLP provides the possibility of representing information in the
form of weak rules in a declarative manner, and a defeasible argumentation
inference mechanism for warranting the entailed conclusions.
In DeLP an argumentation formalism will be used for deciding between
contradictory goals. Queries will be supported by arguments that could be
defeated by other arguments. A query q will succeed when there is an argument A
for q that is warranted, ie, the argument A that supports q is found undefeated
by a warrant procedure that implements a dialectical analysis.
The defeasible argumentation basis of DeLP allows to build applications that
deal with incomplete and contradictory information in dynamic domains. Thus,
the resulting approach is suitable for representing agent's knowledge and for
providing an argumentation based reasoning mechanism to agents.Comment: 43 pages, to appear in the journal "Theory and Practice of Logic
Programming
A reconstruction of the multipreference closure
The paper describes a preferential approach for dealing with exceptions in
KLM preferential logics, based on the rational closure. It is well known that
the rational closure does not allow an independent handling of the inheritance
of different defeasible properties of concepts. Several solutions have been
proposed to face this problem and the lexicographic closure is the most notable
one. In this work, we consider an alternative closure construction, called the
Multi Preference closure (MP-closure), that has been first considered for
reasoning with exceptions in DLs. Here, we reconstruct the notion of MP-closure
in the propositional case and we show that it is a natural variant of Lehmann's
lexicographic closure. Abandoning Maximal Entropy (an alternative route already
considered but not explored by Lehmann) leads to a construction which exploits
a different lexicographic ordering w.r.t. the lexicographic closure, and
determines a preferential consequence relation rather than a rational
consequence relation. We show that, building on the MP-closure semantics,
rationality can be recovered, at least from the semantic point of view,
resulting in a rational consequence relation which is stronger than the
rational closure, but incomparable with the lexicographic closure. We also show
that the MP-closure is stronger than the Relevant Closure.Comment: 57 page
- …