785 research outputs found
Properties of ABA+ for Non-Monotonic Reasoning
We investigate properties of ABA+, a formalism that extends the well studied
structured argumentation formalism Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) with a
preference handling mechanism. In particular, we establish desirable properties
that ABA+ semantics exhibit. These pave way to the satisfaction by ABA+ of some
(arguably) desirable principles of preference handling in argumentation and
nonmonotonic reasoning, as well as non-monotonic inference properties of ABA+
under various semantics.Comment: This is a revised version of the paper presented at the worksho
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
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
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
Reasoning by Cases in Structured Argumentation
We extend the framework for structured argumentation so as to allow
applications of the reasoning by cases inference scheme for defeasible
arguments. Given an argument with conclusion ` or ', an argument based on
with conclusion , and an argument based on with conclusion , we
allow the construction of an argument with conclusion . We show how our
framework leads to different results than other approaches in non-monotonic
logic for dealing with disjunctive information, such as disjunctive default
theory or approaches based on the OR-rule (which allows to derive a defeasible
rule `If ( or ) then ', given two defeasible rules `If then '
and `If then '). We raise new questions regarding the subtleties of
reasoning defeasibly with disjunctive information, and show that its
formalization is more intricate than one would presume.Comment: Proceedings of SAC/KRR 201
Reasoning about Action: An Argumentation - Theoretic Approach
We present a uniform non-monotonic solution to the problems of reasoning
about action on the basis of an argumentation-theoretic approach. Our theory is
provably correct relative to a sensible minimisation policy introduced on top
of a temporal propositional logic. Sophisticated problem domains can be
formalised in our framework. As much attention of researchers in the field has
been paid to the traditional and basic problems in reasoning about actions such
as the frame, the qualification and the ramification problems, approaches to
these problems within our formalisation lie at heart of the expositions
presented in this paper
- …