Defeasibility in answer set programs with defaults and argumentation rules

DAMN: Defeasible Reasoning Tool for Multi-Agent Reasoning

“…Different tools for defeasible reasoning have been proposed in the literature, most notably, ASPIC+ 2 (Prakken 2010), DeLP 3 (García and Simari 2004), DEFT (Hecham, Croitoru, and Bisquert 2017), ELDR (Hecham, Bisquert, and Croitoru 2018), Flora-2 (Wan, Kifer, and Grosof 2015), and SPINdle (Lam 2012). However, each tool allows for a different set of defeasible reasoning features and none of them provides support for multi-agent collaboration or visualization.…”

A First Order Logic Benchmark for Defeasible Reasoning Tool Profiling

“…An online tool called DeLP client 6 is also available. Flora-2 [28,27] is a rule-based knowledge base system designed for a variety of automated tasks on the Semantic Web, ranging from meta-data management to intelligent agents. It has a commercial version called Ergo with additional functionalities.…”

Annotated defeasible logic

“…Courteous logic programs (Grosof 1997) (and later developments (Wan et al 2009;Wan et al 2015)) permit negation-as-failure expressions in defeasible rules, which are essentially the same as failexpressions. ) discussed a specific transformation for eliminating these expressions from courteous logic programs; that transformation is not sound for ambiguity propagating logics.…”

“…Most defeasible logics support a single semantics of failure: Kunen's (Billington et al 2010), well-founded (Grosof 1997;Maher and Governatori 1999;Wan et al 2009;Maier and Nute 2010;Maher et al 2011), or stable (Verheij 2003;Maier 2013;Wan et al 2015). Apart from the framework of , the only defeasible formalisms supporting multiple semantics are structured argumentation languages like ASPIC+ (Prakken 2010).…”

“…Structured argumentation approaches, such as ASPIC+ (Prakken 2010), use unannotated rules without an inference rule (in the sense above) and hence define a single form of defeasibility. A meta-program component of the languages LPDA and ASPDA (Wan et al 2009;Wan et al 2015), called an argumentation theory, is capable of specifying a different inference rule for each literal, but not for each occurrence of each literal. Thus, although they provide more interaction than the defeasible logics, they do not provide the ability to apply different inference rules to the same atom.…”