M. Elvang-Goransson, P. Krause, and J. Fox. Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information. In Proceddings of the 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 1993.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....Parsons and Jennings [112] have followed our formalism described in [77] to construct arguments to evaluate proposals and counterporposals in negotiation. A recipient agent evaluates a proposal by constructing arguments for and against it. Their notions of argument defeat are based on the work of [45,90,34,79]. Gasser [48] discusses the social aspects of action in multi agent systems. In his view, different social mechanisms can dynamically emerge, resulting in changing the communication language between the agents, and forming different communities of agents. This approach is most effective when the ....

M. Elvang-Goransson, P. Krause, and J. Fox. Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information. In Proceddings of the 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 1993.

....argumentation We fit argumentation into our multi context agents by building arguments using the rules of inference of the various units and the bridge rules between units. However, there is an important difference between the system of argumentation we employ and that used by other authors [8, 9, 24, 29]. This is as follows. Often the grounds of 17 an argument are just the formulae from which the argument is built; it is taken for granted that the agent in question can build the necessary proof from the grounds when desired. However, this assumption does not necessarily hold in multi agent ....

....units arguments are built in and what the units represent. We discuss notions of attack relevant to BDI agents in Section 4.3. Our motivation for classifying arguments in terms of rebutting and undercutting is that it allows us to split arguments into classes of acceptability, again following [9] and our previous work on argumentation in multi agent systems [28] We have, in order of increasing acceptability: A1 The class of all arguments that may be made from Gamma. A2 The class of all non trivial arguments that may be made from Gamma. A3 The class of all arguments that may be made ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

M. Elvang-Gransson, P. Krause, and J. Fox. Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 114--121, 1993.

....of the argument as a whole. This is the approach adopted in the argumentation logic LA (Krause et al. 1995) which uses a labelled deductive system (Gabbay, 1992) to record sets of supports and determine acceptability. This approach is motivated by the need to reason under uncertainty, (Elvang Goransson et al. 1993), and has successfully been applied in a number of medical domains (Fox and Das, 1996) LA represents a highly specific logic, based, in the first instance, upon intuitions of evaluating a claim on the basis of pro and con arguments. A more generic approach to uncertainty and incompleteness ....

.... example of such distributed defeasible reasoning, as it is termed in (Reed and Long, 1997a, p499) is offered in (Parsons and Jennings, 1996) In this framework agents negotiate by communicating proposed joint plans which may involve defeasible inferences the plans are arguments in the logic of (Elvang Gransson et al. 1993). Agents then evaluate incoming proposals on the basis of the calculated acceptability class of the plan. The highest class comprises arguments which are tautological (i.e. which require no support) any such argument would be immediately accepted. The next class comprise arguments for which the ....

"Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information" in Proceedings of the Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence

....of the argument as a whole. This is the approach adopted in the argumentation logic LA (Krause et al. 1995) which uses a labelled deductive system (Gabbay, 1992) to record sets of supports and determine acceptability. This approach is motivated by the need to reason under uncertainty, (Elvang Goransson et al. 1993), and has successfully been applied in a number of medical domains (Fox and Das, 1996) LA represents a highly specific logic, based, in the first instance, upon intuitions of evaluating a claim on the basis of pro and con arguments. A more generic approach to uncertainty and incompleteness ....

.... example of such distributed defeasible reasoning, as it is termed in (Reed and Long, 1997a, p499) is offered in (Parsons and Jennings, 1996) In this framework agents negotiate by communicating proposed joint plans which may involve defeasible inferences the plans are arguments in the logic of (Elvang Gransson et al. 1993). Agents then evaluate incoming proposals on the basis of the calculated acceptability class of the plan. The highest class comprises arguments which are tautological (i.e. which require no support) any such argument would be immediately accepted. The next class comprise arguments for which the ....

"Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information" in Proceedings of the Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence

....directions for further research may be drawn from the above discussion. First, we think that syntax based inference based on the ARG principle deserves deeper investigation. Promising approaches to defeasible reasoning have been recently proposed in the framework of argumentation (for instance in [19, 11, 14]) Roughly speaking, a conclusion is inferred if the arguments supporting it can be successfully defended against the arguments supporting the opposite statement. In the case of a flat belief base, most of the argument based inference relations have been restated in the framework of syntax based ....

M. Elvang-Goransson, J. Fox, and P. Krause. Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information. In Proc. of the 9 th UAI, pages 114--121, Washington, DC, 1993. Morgan-Kaufmann.

....which are based on the axioms of the logic that underlies the system of argumentation rather than the information in the database. Having made these distinctions we can identify the following classes of arguments for a database Delta, which are listed in increasing order of acceptability [7]: A1 The class of all arguments that may be made from Delta. A2 The class of all logically consistent arguments that may be made from Delta (so that cannot be derived from the steps in the argument) 2 In an informal semantic sense precedes(c; e) and precedes(e; c) are clearly inconsistent. ....

Elvang-Gøransson, M., Krause, P., and Fox, J. (1993) Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information, Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Washington D. C.

....That is, it is possible to have certain arguments for both a proposition p and its negation :p. This inconsistency enables LA to provide a ranking over the propositions for which arguments may be proposed. In particular, arguments for propositions are allocated different classes of acceptability [5, 7], the allocation depending on factors such as whether an argument is based on a consistent database or whether there are any counterarguments. This approach can be used to give a purely logical approach to uncertainty that ranks propositions only on the structure of the arguments for them, and it ....

Elvang-Gøransson, M., Krause, P. and Fox, J. (1993) Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information, Proceedings of 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Washington, D. C.

No context found.

Elvang-Gøransson M., Krause P.J. and Fox J. (1993) Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information. In: Heckerman D. and Mamdani A. (eds.), Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. Proceedings of the Ninth Conference, (San Mateo, Ca: Morgan Kaufmann).

....provides us with a uniform framework within which we can provide a semantics for argumentation and aggregation. Early versions of the work contained in this paper were originally presented at IPMU 92 (Krause, Ambler and Fox 1993) and at the 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (Elvang G ransson, Krause and Fox 1993). The former contained a presentation of the proof rules and outlined the development of the semantics of LA and aggregation. The latter paper contained the definition of the acceptability classes discussed here in sub section 6.3. This paper expands on the material presented in both these ....

....of the arguments which support them, we will show how propositions may be assigned to one of the classes certain, confirmed, probable, plausible, supported, open . Complementary classes, such as opposed, doubted, may be defined in terms of the assignment of negated terms to the earlier classes (Elvang G ransson et al. 1993). We should justify the specific terms we have chosen to use. Firstly, let us emphasise that we will regard every axiom in the database as a contingent fact. Any of the axioms in the context may be retracted or contradicted. They are current beliefs, or at least working hypotheses, but they should ....

Elvang-Gøransson M., Krause P.J. and Fox J. 1993. Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information.

No context found.

M. Elvang-Goransson, P. Krause, J. Fox (1993) Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information. Proc. UAI'93, 114-121.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC