Defeasible logic programming: DeLP-servers, contextual queries, and explanations for answers

Abstract

Argumentation represents a way of reasoning over a knowledge base containing possibly incomplete and/or inconsistent information, to obtain useful conclusions. As a reasoning mechanism, the way an argumentation reasoning engine reaches these conclusions resembles the cognitive process that humans follow to analyse their beliefs; thus, unlike other computationally reasoning systems, argumentation offers an intellectually friendly alternative to other defeasible reasoning systems. Logic Programming is a computational paradigm that has produced computationally attractive systems with remarkable success in many applications. Merging ideas from both areas, Defeasible Logic Programming offers a computational reasoning system that uses an argumentation engine to obtain answers from a knowledge base represented using a logic programming language extended with defeasible rules. This combination of ideas brings about a computationally effective system together with a human-like reasoning model facilitating its use in applications.

Non-Monotonic Inference Properties for Assumption-Based Argumentation

“…Regarding (i), with the exceptions of [16] and [21], existing works on properties of argumentation disregard the issues of argumentation dynamics: for example, [11] propose rationality postulates for rulebased argumentation systems; [17] provide guidelines for argumentation-based practical reasoning; [20] postulate and examine properties of attack relations (and the corresponding extensions under alternative semantics) over classical logic-based argument graphs. As far as (ii) is concerned, argumentation dynamics has recently been studied with respect to Abstract Argumentation [15] and some other argumentation-based approaches to non-monotonic reasoning, such as DeLP [19] (see e.g. [3,12,13,18]).…”

The Argument Web: an Online Ecosystem of Tools, Systems and Services for Argumentation

“…There is a long history of argument analysis software which has in turn spawned a number of review and comparison articles including the work of Harrell (2005), Scheuer et al (2010) and Kirschner et al (2003) which review different application areas (including deliberation, eDemocracy and eRulemaking, the law, and so on) and different philosophical starting points (Toulmin, Freeman, Walton and more). The emergence of the AIF was itself a result of this tradition, with the markup language used by Araucaria (Reed and Rowe 2004) used as a base, enhanced with features from Carneades (Gordon and Walton 2006), DeLP (García and Simari 2014) and others, reflecting not ony practical improvements but also improvements reflecting deeper theoretical insights (including the ability to handle undercutting arguments, full graph structures, etc. ).…”

“…raw AIF structures), converting them to abstract frameworks according to Bex et al (2013) and then calling Dung-O-Matic. Tweety (Thimm 2014) is an implementation of DeLP (García and Simari 2014) that uses a simple mapping from AIF into a logic program. Finally ArgSemSAT (Cerutti et al 2014) uses a computational technique known as SAT solving to compute acceptability over abstract frameworks using the same translation as is performed in TOAST.…”

Towards a framework for computational persuasion with applications in behaviour change1

“…negates the support of the argument). A range of options for structured argumentation at the logic level have been investigated (see [17,51,104,140] for tutorial reviews of some of the key proposals. Whilst most proposals for structured argumentation involve simple rule-based reasoning, there is some investigation of the role of classical logic in argumentation (see for example [16]), and of how probabilistic reasoning can be incorporated in structured arguments (see for example [74,139,144]).…”