A flexible framework for defeasible logics

Logics for knowledge representation suffer from over-specialization: while each logic may provide an ideal representation formalism for some problems, it is less than optimal for others. A solution to this problem is to choose from several logics and, when necessary, combine the representations. In general, such an approach results in a very difficult problem of combination. However, if we can choose the logics from a uniform framework then the problem of combining them is greatly simplified. In this paper, we develop such a framework for defeasible logics. It supports all defeasible logics that satisfy a strong negation principle. We use logic meta-programs as the basis for the framework.Comment: Proceedings of 8th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, April 9-11, 2000, Breckenridge, Colorad

A Family of Defeasible Reasoning Logics and its Implementation

Defeasible reasoning is a direction in nonmonotonic reasoning that is based on the use of rules that may be defeated by other rules. It is a simple, but often more efficient approach than other nonmonotonic reasoning systems. This paper presents a family of defeasible reasoning formalisms built around Nute's defeasible logic. We describe the motivations of these formalisms and derive some basic properties and interrelationships. We also describe a query answering system that supports these formalisms and is available on the World Wide Web

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

Beyond reasonable doubt: a proposal for undecidedness blocking in abstract argumentation

In Dung’s abstract semantics, the label undecided is always propagated from the attacker to the attacked argument, unless the latter is also attacked by an accepted argument. In this work we propose undecidedness blocking abstract argumentation semantics where the undecided label is confined to the strong connected component where it was generated and it is not propagated to the other parts of the argumentation graph. We show how undecidedness blocking is a fundamental reasoning pattern absent in abstract argumentation but present in similar fashion in the ambiguity blocking semantics of Defeasible logic, in the beyond reasonable doubt legal principle or when someone gives someone else the benefit of the doubt. The resulting semantics, called SCC-void semantics, are defined using an SCC-recursive schema. The semantics are conflict-free and non-admissible, but they incorporate a more relaxed defence-based notion of admissibility. They allow reinstatement and they credulously accept what the corresponding Dung’s complete semantics accepts at least credulously

Programming in logic without logic programming

In previous work, we proposed a logic-based framework in which computation is the execution of actions in an attempt to make reactive rules of the form if antecedent then consequent true in a canonical model of a logic program determined by an initial state, sequence of events, and the resulting sequence of subsequent states. In this model-theoretic semantics, reactive rules are the driving force, and logic programs play only a supporting role. In the canonical model, states, actions and other events are represented with timestamps. But in the operational semantics, for the sake of efficiency, timestamps are omitted and only the current state is maintained. State transitions are performed reactively by executing actions to make the consequents of rules true whenever the antecedents become true. This operational semantics is sound, but incomplete. It cannot make reactive rules true by preventing their antecedents from becoming true, or by proactively making their consequents true before their antecedents become true. In this paper, we characterize the notion of reactive model, and prove that the operational semantics can generate all and only such models. In order to focus on the main issues, we omit the logic programming component of the framework.Comment: Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP

A framework for relating, implementing and verifying argumentation models and their translations

Computational argumentation theory deals with the formalisation of argument structure, conflict between arguments and domain-specific constructs, such as proof standards, epistemic probabilities or argument schemes. However, despite these practical components, there is a lack of implementations and implementation methods available for most structured models of argumentation and translations between them. This thesis addresses this problem, by constructing a general framework for relating, implementing and formally verifying argumentation models and translations between them, drawing from dependent type theory and the Curry-Howard correspondence. The framework provides mathematical tools and programming methodologies to implement argumentation models, allowing programmers and argumentation theorists to construct implementations that are closely related to the mathematical definitions. It furthermore provides tools that, without much effort on the programmer's side, can automatically construct counter-examples to desired properties, while finally providing methodologies that can prove formal correctness of the implementation in a theorem prover. The thesis consists of various use cases that demonstrate the general approach of the framework. The Carneades argumentation model, Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks and a translation between them, are implemented in the functional programming language Haskell. Implementations of formal properties of the translation are provided together with a formalisation of AFs in the theorem prover, Agda. The result is a verified pipeline, from the structured model Carneades into existing efficient SAT-based implementations of Dung's AFs. Finally, the ASPIC+ model for argumentation is generalised to incorporate content orderings, weight propagation and argument accrual. The framework is applied to provide a translation from this new model into Dung's AFs, together with a complete implementation

A Purely Defeasible Argumentation Framework

Argumentation theory is concerned with the way that intelligent agents discuss whether some statement holds. It is a claim-based theory that is widely used in many areas, such as law, linguistics and computer science. In the past few years, formal argumentation frameworks have been heavily studied and applications have been proposed in fields such as natural language processing, the semantic web and multi-agent systems. Studying argumentation provides results which help in developing tools and applications in these areas. Argumentation is interesting as a logic-based approach to deal with inconsistent information. Arguments are constructed using a process like logical inference, with inconsistencies giving rise to conflicts between arguments. These conflicts can then be handled by well-founded means, giving a consistent set of well-justified arguments and conclusions. Dung\u27s seminal work tells us how to handle the conflicts between arguments. However, it says nothing about the structure of arguments, or how to construct arguments and attack relationships from a knowledge base. ASPIC+ is one of the most widely used systems for structured arguments. However, there are some limitations on ASPIC+ if it is to satisfy widely accepted standards of rationality. Since most of these limitations are due to the use of strict rules, it is worth considering using a purely defeasible subset of ASPIC+. The main contribution of this dissertation is the purely defeasible argumentation framework ASPIC+D. There are three research questions related to this topic which are investigated here: (1) Do we lose anything in removing the strict elements? (2) Do purely defeasible version of theories generate the same results as the original theories? (3) What do we gain by removing the strict elements? I show that using ASPIC+D, it is possible, in a well-defined sense, to capture the same information as using ASPIC+ with strict rules. In particular, I prove that under some reasonable assumptions, it is possible to take a well-defined theory in ASPIC+, that is one with a consistent set of conclusions, and translate it into ASPIC+D such that, under the grounded semantics, we obtain the same set of justified conclusions. I also show that, under some additional assumptions, the same is true under any complete-based semantics. Furthermore, I formally characterize the situations in which translating an ASPIC+ theory that is ill-defined into ASPIC+D will lead to the same sets of justified conclusions. In doing this I deal both with ASPIC+ theories that are not closed under transposition and theories that are axiom inconsistent. At last, I analyze the two systems in the context of the non-monotonic axioms. I show that ASPIC+ and ASPIC+D satisfy exactly same axioms under what I call the “argument construction” interpretation and the “justified conclusions” interpretation under the grounded semantics. Furthermore, because of the lack of strict elements, ASPIC+ satisfies more of the non-monotonic axioms than ASPIC+ in the ``justified conclusions\u27\u27 interpretation under the preferred semantic. This means that ASPIC+ and ASPIC+D may not have the same justified conclusions under the preferred semantics

Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning

These are the proceedings of the 11th Nonmonotonic Reasoning Workshop. The aim of this series is to bring together active researchers in the broad area of nonmonotonic reasoning, including belief revision, reasoning about actions, planning, logic programming, argumentation, causality, probabilistic and possibilistic approaches to KR, and other related topics. As part of the program of the 11th workshop, we have assessed the status of the field and discussed issues such as: Significant recent achievements in the theory and automation of NMR; Critical short and long term goals for NMR; Emerging new research directions in NMR; Practical applications of NMR; Significance of NMR to knowledge representation and AI in general