Search
  • All Journals
Advanced Search
Search articles by Title, Author, Keywords, DOI
3.9CiteScore
1.3Impact Factor
Advanced Search
MAP  >  The Knowledge Engineering Review
2008 Volume 23
Article Contents
Next Previous
RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

A review of current defeasible reasoning implementations

More Information
  • Abstract: This article surveys existing practical implementations of both defeasible and argumentation-based reasoning engines and associated literature. We aim to summarize the current state of the art in the research area, show that there are many similiarities and connections between the various implementations and also highlight the differences regarding evaluation goals and strategies. An important goal of this paper is to argue for the need for well-designed empirical evaluations, as well as formal complexity analysis, in order to justify the practical applicability of a reasoning engine. There are indeed many challenges to be faced in developing implementations of argumentation. Not least of these is the inherent computational complexity of the formal models. We cover some of the ways these challenges have been addressed, and provide pointers for future directions in realizing the goal of practical argumentation.
  • 加载中
  • Alferes J. J. & Pereira L. M.1996Reasoning with Logic Programming. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    Amgoud L. & Prade H.2004 Using arguments for making decisions: a possibilistic logic approach. In AUAI '04: Proceedings of the 20th conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence.Arlington, Virginia: AUAI Press, pp. 10–17.

    Google Scholar

    Antoniou G.1997Nonmonotonic Reasoning. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar

    Antoniou G. & Bikakis A.2007Dr-prolog: A system for defeasible reasoning with rules and ontologies on the semantic web. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering19(2), 233–245.

    Google Scholar

    Antoniou G., Billington D., Governatori G. & Maher M. J.2001Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic2(2), 255–287.

    Google Scholar

    Bench-Capon T. J. M.2003Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic Computation13(3), 429–448.

    Google Scholar

    Besnard P. & Hunter A.Elements of Argumentation. In preparation, 2008.

    Google Scholar

    Billington D. & Rock A.2001Propositional plausible logic: Introduction and implementation. Studia Logica67(2), 243–269.

    Google Scholar

    Bondarenko A., Dung P. M., Kowalski R. & Toni F.1997An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence93(1–2), 63–101.

    Google Scholar

    Boolos G., Burgess J. & Jeffrey R.2002Computability and Logic. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar

    Bryant D. & Krause P. J.2006 An implementation of a lightweight argumentation engine for agent applications. In Proceedings of 10th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA06), vol. 4160 of LNAI.Springer, pp. 469–472.

    Google Scholar

    Bryant D., Krause P. J. & Vreeswijk G.2006 Argue tuprolog: A lightweight argumentation engine for agent applications. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA06).IOS Press, pp. 27–32.

    Google Scholar

    Capobianco M. & Chesnevar C. I.1999 Introducing dialectical bases in defeasible argumentation. In Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Aspectos Teoricos de la Inteligencia Artificial (ATIA), San Juan, Argentina, pp. 1–10.

    Google Scholar

    Capobianco M., Chesnevar C. & Simari G.2004 An argument-based framework to model an agent's beliefs in a dynamic environment. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Argumentation in Multiagent Systems. AAMAS 2004.

    Google Scholar

    Capobianco M., Chesnevar C. I. & Simari G. R.2005Argumentation and the dynamics of warranted beliefs in changing environments. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems11(2), 127–151.

    Google Scholar

    Causey R. L.1994Evid: A system for interactive defeasible reasoning. Decision Support Sytems11(2), 103–131.

    Google Scholar

    Causey R. L.2003Computational dialogic defeasible reasoning. Argumentation17(4), 421–450.

    Google Scholar

    Cayrol C., Doutre S. & Mengin J.2001 Dialectical proof theories for the credulous preferred semantics of argumentation frameworks. In ECSQARU '01: Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, London, UK: Springer-Verlag, pp. 668–679.

    Google Scholar

    Cayrol C., Doutre S. & Mengin J.2003On decision problems related to the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic Computation13(3), 377–403.

    Google Scholar

    Cecchi L. A., Fillottrani P. R. & Simari G. R.2006 On the complexity of deLP through game semantics. In Dix J. & Hunter A. (eds.). Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning (NMR 2006). IfI Technical Report Series, Clausthal University, pp. 386–384.

    Google Scholar

    Chesnevar C. I. & Maguitman A. G.2004 Arguenet: an argument-based recommender system for solving web search queries. In Proceedings. 2004 2nd International IEEE Conference in Intelligent Systems, pp. 282–287.

    Google Scholar

    Chesnevar C. I., Maguitman A. G. & Loui R. P.2000a Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys,32(4), 337–383.

    Google Scholar

    Chesnevar C. I., Simari G. R. & Garca A. J.2000b Pruning search space in defeasible argumentation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Advances and Trends in Search in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 40–47.

    Google Scholar

    Chisholm R.1997Theory of Knowledge. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar

    Cholewinski P., Marek V. W., Mikitiuk A. & Truszczyński M.1999Computing with default logic. Artificial Intelligence112(1–2), 105–146.

    Google Scholar

    Colmerauer A., Kanoui H., Roussel P. & Pasero R.1973 Un systeme de communication homme-machine en francais. Technical report, Groupe de Recherche en Intelligence Artificielle, Universite d'Aix-Marseille II.

    Google Scholar

    Covington M. A.2000Logical control of an elavator with defeasible logic. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control45(7), 1347–1349.

    Google Scholar

    Denti E., Omicini A. & Ricci A.2001tuProlog: A light-weight prolog for internet applications and infrastructures. In Symposium on Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages (PADL), 184–198.

    Google Scholar

    Denti E., Omicini A. & Ricci A.2005Multi-paradigm java-prolog integration in tuProlog. Science of Computer Programming.57(2), 217–250.

    Google Scholar

    Dimopoulos Y., Nebel B. & Toni F.2000 Finding admissible and preferred arguments can be very hard. In Cohn A. G., Giunchiglia F. & Selman B. (eds.). KR2000: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 53–61.

    Google Scholar

    Dimopoulos Y., Nebel B. & Toni F.2002On the computational complexity of assumption-based argumentation for default reasoning. Artificial Intellegence141(1), 57–78.

    Google Scholar

    Dimopoulos Y. & Torres A.1996Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theoretical Computer Science.170(1–2), 209–244.

    Google Scholar

    Dowling W. F. & Gallier J. H.1984Linear-time algorithms for testing the satisfiability of propositional horn formulae. Journal of Logic Programming1, 267–284.

    Google Scholar

    Dung P. M.1995On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence77(2), 321–358.

    Google Scholar

    Dung P. M., Kowalski R. A. & Toni F.2006Dialectic proof procedures for assumption based admissible argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence170(2), 114–159.

    Google Scholar

    Dunne P. E. & Bench-Capon T. J. M.2002Coherence infinite argument systems. Artificial Intelligence141(1), 187–203.

    Google Scholar

    Gaertner D. & Toni F.2007 Casapi—a system for credulous and sceptical argumentation. In Proceedings of First International Workshop on Argumentation and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Arizona, USA.

    Google Scholar

    Garcia A., Gollapally D., Tarau P. & Simari G.2000 Deliberative stock market agents using jinni and defeasible logic programming. In In Proceedings of the ECAI Workshop on Engineering Societies in the Agents. Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    Garcia A. & Simari G. R.1999Parallel defeasible argumentation. Journal of computer science and technology special issue: Artificial intelligence and evolutive computation.1(2), 45–57.

    Google Scholar

    Garcia A. J. & Simari G. R.2004Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming4(2), 95–138.

    Google Scholar

    García A. J., Rotstein N. D. & Simari G. R.2007 Dialectical Explanations in Defeasible Argumentation. In Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU-07).Springer LNCS, pp. 295–307.

    Google Scholar

    Garey M. & Johnson D.1979Computers and Intractability. New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar

    Gelfond M. & Lifschitz V.1991Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing9(3/4), 365–386.

    Google Scholar

    Haenni R.2001Cost-bounded argumentation. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning26, 101–127(27).

    Google Scholar

    Jakobovits H. & Vermeir D.1999 Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM Press, pp. 53–65.

    Google Scholar

    Kowalski R.1979Algorithm = logic + control. Communications of the ACM22, 424–436.

    Google Scholar

    Loui R. & Simari G.1994NATHAN (Spec13): Argues defeasibly in first-order logic.www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/airepository/ai/areas/reasonng/defeasbl/nathan/0.html. Last accessed: 13th February 2007.

    Google Scholar

    Loui R. P., Norman J., Olson J. & Merrill A.1993 A design for reasoning with policies, precedents, and rationales. In ICAIL '93: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 202–211.

    Google Scholar

    Loyd J.1984Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    Maher M. J., Rock A., Antoniou G., Billington D. & Miller T.2001a Deimos. available from www.cit.gu.edu.au/arock/defeasible/Defeasible.cgi. Last accessed: 10 September 2006.

    Google Scholar

    Maher M. J., Rock A., Antoniou G., Billington D. & Miller T.2001b Efficient defeasible reasoning systems. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 10(4), 483–501.

    Google Scholar

    Nudelman E.2005Empirical Approaches to the Complexity of Hard Problems. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar

    Nute D.1988Defeasible reasoning and decision support systems. Decision Support Systems4(1), 97–110.

    Google Scholar

    Nute D.1993 Defeasible prolog. In Proceedings of AAAI Fall Symposium on Automated Deduction in Nonstandard Logics, (Technical Report FS-93-01), pp. 105–112.

    Google Scholar

    Nute D.1994 Defeasible logic. In Gabbay D., Hogger C. J. & Robinson J. A. (eds.), Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Volume 3: Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Uncertain Reasoning, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 353–395.

    Google Scholar

    Nute D., Mann R. I. & Brewer B. F.1990Controlling expert system recommendations with defeasible logic. Decision Support Systems6(2), 153–164.

    Google Scholar

    Pollock J. L.1995Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for how to build a person. MIT Press, A Bradford Book, USA.

    Google Scholar

    Pollock J. L.1992How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence57(1), 1–42.

    Google Scholar

    Pollock J. L.1999 Rational cognition in OSCAR. In Workshop of Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, pp. 71–90.

    Google Scholar

    Prakken H. & Vresswijk G.2002 Logics for defeasible argumentation. In Gabbay D. & Guenthner F. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn.The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 218–319.

    Google Scholar

    Rock A.2006a Deimos: A Query Answering Defeasible Logic System. www.cit.gu.edu.au/arock/defeasible/doc/Deimos-short.pdf Last accessed: 19th November 2006.

    Google Scholar

    Rock A.2006b Phobos. Available from www.cit.gu.edu.au/arock/plausible/Plausible.cgi. Last accessed: 10 September 2006.

    Google Scholar

    Rock A.2006c Phobos (Version 2): A Query Answering Plausible Logic System. www.cit.gu.edu.au/arock/plausible/doc/Phobos-short.pdf Last accessed: 19th November 2006.

    Google Scholar

    Rock A. & Billington D.2000 An implementation of propositional plausible logic. In Proceedings of 23rd Australasian Computer Science Conference, 2000. ACSC 2000.IEEE Press, pp. 204–210.

    Google Scholar

    Russell S. J. & Norvig P.2003Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach,2nd edn.Prentice Hall

    Google Scholar

    Schroeder M.1999 An efficient argumentation framework for negotiating autonomous agents. In MAAMAW '99: Proceedings of the 9th European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World.London, UK: Springer-Verlag, pages 140–149.

    Google Scholar

    Shortliffe D. A.1976MYCIN: Computer-Based Medical Consultations. Elsevier.

    Google Scholar

    Simari G. & Loui R.1982Mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence53(2–3), 125–157.

    Google Scholar

    Simari G. R.1989A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation. PhD thesis, Washington University in Saint Louis.

    Google Scholar

    Sun Microsystems. 2007Welcome to NetBeans. Available from www.netbeans.org/ Last accessed: 10 September 2007.

    Google Scholar

    Tarau P.1999 Jinni: Intelligent mobile agent programming at the intersection of java and prolog. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Practical Application of Intelligent Agnets and Multi-Agents, London, UK, pp. 109–123.

    Google Scholar

    Tolchinsky P., Modgil S., Cortes U. & Sanchez-Marre M.2006 Cbr and argument schemes for collaborative decision making. In Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA06). IOS Press.

    Google Scholar

    Van Gelder A., Ross K. A. & Schlipf J. S.1991The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. Journal of the ACM38(3), 620–650.

    Google Scholar

    Vreeswijk G.1993a IACAS: An Interactive Argumentation System—User Manual Version 1.0. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/195813.html. Last accessed: 19th November 2006.

    Google Scholar

    Vreeswijk G.1993b Studies in Defeasible Argumentation. PhD thesis, Free University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar

    Vreeswijk G. A. W.1995 IACAS: an implementation of Chisholm's principles of knowledge. In The Proceedings of the 2nd Dutch/German Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Utrecht., pp. 225–234.

    Google Scholar

    Vreeswijk G. A. W.2006a Vreeswijk's Admissible Defence Sets. Available from www:cs:uu:nl/gv/code/grdadm/ Last accessed: 29 September 2006.

    Google Scholar

    Vreeswijk G. A. W.2006b An algorithm to compute minimaly grounded and admissible defence sets. In Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA06), IOS Press, pp. 109–120.

    Google Scholar

    Vreeswijk G. A. W.2006c Argumentation System (AS). Available from www.cs.uu.nl/people/gv/code/AS/ Last accessed: 10 September 2006.

    Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    DANIEL BRYANT, PAUL KRAUSE. 2008. A review of current defeasible reasoning implementations. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 23:1318 doi: 10.1017/S0269888908001318
    DANIEL BRYANT, PAUL KRAUSE. 2008. A review of current defeasible reasoning implementations. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 23:1318 doi: 10.1017/S0269888908001318
    shu
Download PDF

Article Metrics

Article views(26) PDF downloads(281)

Other Articles By Authors

RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

A review of current defeasible reasoning implementations

  • Published online: 01 September 2008
The Knowledge Engineering Review  23,  Article number: 10.1017/S0269888908001318  (2008)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: Abstract: This article surveys existing practical implementations of both defeasible and argumentation-based reasoning engines and associated literature. We aim to summarize the current state of the art in the research area, show that there are many similiarities and connections between the various implementations and also highlight the differences regarding evaluation goals and strategies. An important goal of this paper is to argue for the need for well-designed empirical evaluations, as well as formal complexity analysis, in order to justify the practical applicability of a reasoning engine. There are indeed many challenges to be faced in developing implementations of argumentation. Not least of these is the inherent computational complexity of the formal models. We cover some of the ways these challenges have been addressed, and provide pointers for future directions in realizing the goal of practical argumentation.

    HTML

    • This work was partially supported by an EPSRC PhD Studentship.

    Rights and permissions
    • Copyright © Cambridge University Press 20082008Cambridge University Press
References (79)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    DANIEL BRYANT, PAUL KRAUSE. 2008. A review of current defeasible reasoning implementations. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 23:1318 doi: 10.1017/S0269888908001318
    DANIEL BRYANT, PAUL KRAUSE. 2008. A review of current defeasible reasoning implementations. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 23:1318 doi: 10.1017/S0269888908001318
    shu

    • Catalog

      /

      DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
      Return
      Return