Towards a comparison criteria for CDeLP

The development of systems with the ability to reason about change notion and actions has been of great importance for the artificial intelligence community. The definition and implementation of systems capable of managing defeasible, incomplete, unreliable, or uncertain information has been also an area of much interest. With a few exceptions research on these two ways of reasoning was independently pursued. Nevertheless, they are complementary and closely related, since many applications that deal with defeasible information also depends on the occurrence of events and time. DeLP is an argumentative system appropriate for commonsense reasoning. 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 for that agent (see for example [6, 1]). It is interesting to extend this system adding mechanisms to manage events and time as CDeLP [7]. Here we analyze how to develop a comparison criteria for arguments built up from causal information and considers commonsense rules of inertia.VIII Workshop de Agentes y Sistemas InteligentesRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Local logics, non-monotonicity and defeasible argumentation

In this paper we present an embedding of abstract argumentation systems into the framework of Barwise and Seligman’s logic of information flow.We show that, taking P.M. Dung’s characterization of argument systems, a local logic over states of a deliberation may be constructed. In this structure, the key feature of non-monotonicity of commonsense reasoning obtains as the transition from one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dung’s extensions one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dung’s extensions one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dung’s extensions one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dung’s extensions of Barwise and Seligman’s logic of information flow.We show that, taking P.M. Dung’s characterization of argument systems, a local logic over states of a deliberation may be constructed. In this structure, the key feature of non-monotonicity of commonsense reasoning obtains as the transition from one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dung’s extensions one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dung’s extensions one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dung’s extensions one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dung’s extensions of Barwise and Seligman’s logic of information flow.We show that, taking P.M. Dung’s characterization of argument systems, a local logic over states of a deliberation may be constructed. In this structure, the key feature of non-monotonicity of commonsense reasoning obtains as the transition from one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dung’s extensions one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dung’s extensions one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dung’s extensions one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dung’s extensions of Barwise and Seligman’s logic of information flow.We show that, taking P.M. Dung’s characterization of argument systems, a local logic over states of a deliberation may be constructed. In this structure, the key feature of non-monotonicity of commonsense reasoning obtains as the transition from one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dung’s extensions one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dung’s extensions one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dung’s extensions one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dung’s extensions of Barwise and Seligman’s logic of information flow.We show that, taking P.M. Dung’s characterization of argument systems, a local logic over states of a deliberation may be constructed. In this structure, the key feature of non-monotonicity of commonsense reasoning obtains as the transition from one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dung’s extensions one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dung’s extensions one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dung’s extensions one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dung’s extensions one local logic to another, due to a change in certain background conditions. Each of Dung’s extensions of argument systems leads to a corresponding ordering of background conditions. The relations among extensions becomes a relation among partial orderings of background conditions. This introduces a conceptual innovation in Barwise and Seligman’s representation of commonsense reasoning.Fil: Bodanza, Gustavo Adrian. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Humanidades; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; ArgentinaFil: Tohmé, Fernando Abel. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Economía; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Economía. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur; Argentin

Belief Revision in Structured Probabilistic Argumentation

In real-world applications, knowledge bases consisting of all the information at hand for a specific domain, along with the current state of affairs, are bound to contain contradictory data coming from different sources, as well as data with varying degrees of uncertainty attached. Likewise, an important aspect of the effort associated with maintaining knowledge bases is deciding what information is no longer useful; pieces of information (such as intelligence reports) may be outdated, may come from sources that have recently been discovered to be of low quality, or abundant evidence may be available that contradicts them. In this paper, we propose a probabilistic structured argumentation framework that arises from the extension of Presumptive Defeasible Logic Programming (PreDeLP) with probabilistic models, and argue that this formalism is capable of addressing the basic issues of handling contradictory and uncertain data. Then, to address the last issue, we focus on the study of non-prioritized belief revision operations over probabilistic PreDeLP programs. We propose a set of rationality postulates -- based on well-known ones developed for classical knowledge bases -- that characterize how such operations should behave, and study a class of operators along with theoretical relationships with the proposed postulates, including a representation theorem stating the equivalence between this class and the class of operators characterized by the postulates

Towards a comparison criteria for CDeLP

The development of systems with the ability to reason about change notion and actions has been of great importance for the artificial intelligence community. The definition and implementation of systems capable of managing defeasible, incomplete, unreliable, or uncertain information has been also an area of much interest. With a few exceptions research on these two ways of reasoning was independently pursued. Nevertheless, they are complementary and closely related, since many applications that deal with defeasible information also depends on the occurrence of events and time. DeLP is an argumentative system appropriate for commonsense reasoning. 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 for that agent (see for example [6, 1]). It is interesting to extend this system adding mechanisms to manage events and time as CDeLP [7]. Here we analyze how to develop a comparison criteria for arguments built up from causal information and considers commonsense rules of inertia.VIII Workshop de Agentes y Sistemas InteligentesRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

A probabilistic analysis of argument cogency

This paper offers a probabilistic treatment of the conditions for argument cogency as endorsed in informal logic: acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency. Treating a natural language argument as a reason-claim-complex, our analysis identifies content features of defeasible argument on which the RSA conditions depend, namely: change in the commitment to the reason, the reason’s sensitivity and selectivity to the claim, one’s prior commitment to the claim, and the contextually determined thresholds of acceptability for reasons and for claims. Results contrast with, and may indeed serve to correct, the informal understanding and applications of the RSA criteria concerning their conceptual dependence, their function as update-thresholds, and their status as obligatory rather than permissive norms, but also show how these formal and informal normative approachs can in fact align

A Labelling Framework for Probabilistic Argumentation

The combination of argumentation and probability paves the way to new accounts of qualitative and quantitative uncertainty, thereby offering new theoretical and applicative opportunities. Due to a variety of interests, probabilistic argumentation is approached in the literature with different frameworks, pertaining to structured and abstract argumentation, and with respect to diverse types of uncertainty, in particular the uncertainty on the credibility of the premises, the uncertainty about which arguments to consider, and the uncertainty on the acceptance status of arguments or statements. Towards a general framework for probabilistic argumentation, we investigate a labelling-oriented framework encompassing a basic setting for rule-based argumentation and its (semi-) abstract account, along with diverse types of uncertainty. Our framework provides a systematic treatment of various kinds of uncertainty and of their relationships and allows us to back or question assertions from the literature

Scaring the public: fear appeal arguments in public health reasoning

The study of threat and fear appeal arguments has given rise to a sizeable literature. Even within a public health context, much is now known about how these arguments work to gain the public's compliance with health recommendations. Notwithstanding this level of interest in, and examination of, these arguments, there is one aspect of these arguments that still remains unexplored. That aspect concerns the heuristic function of these arguments within our thinking about public health problems. Specifically, it is argued that threat and fear appeal arguments serve as valuable shortcuts in our reasoning, particularly when that reasoning is subject to biases that are likely to diminish the effectiveness of public health messages. To this extent, they are rationally warranted argument forms rather than fallacies, as has been their dominant characterization in logic