Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logics

  • Conference paper
PRICAI 2000 Topics in Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI 2000)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1886))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1043 Accesses

Abstract

Defeasible logic is a simple but efficient rule-based non-monotonic logic. It has powerful implementations and shows promise to be applied in the areas of legal reasoning and the modelling of business rules. So far defeasible logic has been defined only proof-theoretically. Argumentation-based semantics have become popular in the area of logic programming. In this paper we give an argumentation-based semantics for defeasible logic.

Recently it has been shown that a family of approaches can be built around defeasible logic, in which different intuitions can be followed. In this paper we present an argumentation-based semantics for an ambiguity propagating logic, too. Further defeasible logics can be characterised in a similar way.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. G. Antoniou, D. Billington, G. Governatori and M.J. Maher. Representation Results for Defeasible Logic. Technical Report, CIT, Griffith University, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  2. G. Antoniou, D. Billington, G. Governatori and M.J. Maher. A Flexible Framework for Defeasible Logic. Proc. American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2000).

    Google Scholar 

  3. G. Antoniou, D. Billington and M.J. Maher. On the analysis of regulations using defeasible rules. In R.H. Sprague (Ed.) Proc. of the 32 nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Press, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  4. G. Antoniou, D. Billington, M.J. Maher, A. Rock, Efficient Defeasible Reasoning Systems, Proc. Australian Workshop on Computational Logic, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  5. G. Antoniou, M. Maher and D. Billington, Defeasible Logic versus Logic Programming without Negation as Failure, Journal of Logic Programming, 42, 47–57, 2000.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. D. Billington. Defeasible Logic is Stable. Journal of Logic and Computation 3 (1993): 370–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. A. Bondarenko, P.M. Dung, R. Kowalski, and F. Toni. An Abstract, Argumentation-Theoretic Framework for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93 (1997): 63–101.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Y. Dimopoulos and A. Kakas. Logic Programming without Negation as Failure. In Proc. ICLP-95, MIT Press 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  9. P.M. Dung. An Argumentation Semantics for Logic Programming with Explicit Negation. Proceedings of the Tenth Logic Programming Conference. MIT Press, Cambridge: 616–630.

    Google Scholar 

  10. P.M. Dung. On The acceptability of Arguments and Its Fundamental Role in Non-monotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77 (1995): 321–357.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. G. Governatori and M.J. Maher. An Argumentation-Theoretic Characterization of Defeasible Logic. In W. Horn (ed.) ECAI 2000. Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  12. B.N. Grosof. Prioritized Conflict Handling for Logic Programs. In Proc. Int. Logic Programming Symposium, J. Maluszynski (Ed.), 197–211. MIT Press, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  13. B.N. Grosof, Y. Labrou, and H.Y. Chan. A Declarative Approach to Business Rules in Contracts: Courteous Logic Programs in XML, Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC-99), ACM Press, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J.F. Horty. Some Direct Theories of Nonmonotonic Inheritance. In D.M. Gabbay, C.J. Hogger and J.A. Robinson (eds.): Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming Vol. 3, 111–187, Oxford University Press, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  15. H. Jakobovits and D. Vermeir. Robust Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, Vol. 9, No. 2, 215–261, 1999.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. R. Kowalski and F. Toni. Abstract Argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (1996): 275–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. M. Maher, G. Antoniou and D. Billington. A Study of Provability in Defeasible Logic. In Proc. Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 215–226, LNAI 1502, Springer, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  18. M. Maher and G. Governatori. A Semantic Decomposition of Defeasible Logics. Proc. American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-99), 299–305.

    Google Scholar 

  19. D. Nute. Defeasible Logic. In D.M. Gabbay, CJ. Hogger and J. A. Robinson (eds.): Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming Vol. 3, Oxford University Press 1994, 353–395.

    Google Scholar 

  20. H. Prakken. Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  21. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Argument-based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities. Journal of Applied and Non-Classical Logics 7 (1997): 25–75.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. D.M. Reeves, B.N. Grosof, M.P. Wellman, and H.Y. Chan. Towards a Declarative Language for Negotiating Executable Contracts, Proceedings of the AAAI-99 Workshop on Artificial Intelligence in Electronic Commerce (AIEC-99), AAAI Press / MIT Press, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  23. G.R. Simari and R.P. Loui. A Mathematical Treatment of Argumentation and Its Implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 53 (1992): 125–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. G. Vreeswijk. Abstract Argumentation Systems. Artificial Intelligence, 90 (1997): 225–279.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Systems, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia

    G. Governatori

  2. School of Computing and Information Technology, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, 4111, Australia

    M. J. Maher, G. Antoniou & D. Billington

Authors
  1. G. Governatori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. J. Maher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Antoniou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Billington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research, Osaka University, 8-1 Mihogaoka, Ibaraki, Osaka, 567-0047, Japan

    Riichiro Mizoguchi

  2. Computer Sciences Laboratory, Research School of Information Sciences and Engineering, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia

    John Slaney

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Antoniou, G., Billington, D. (2000). Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logics. In: Mizoguchi, R., Slaney, J. (eds) PRICAI 2000 Topics in Artificial Intelligence. PRICAI 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1886. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44533-1_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44533-1_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-67925-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44533-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics