Lin,F. and Shoham,Y.,1989, Argument systems: a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning, STAN-CS-89-1243, Stanford University, Department of Computer Science.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....approach. In particular, they show that default logic and autoepistemic logic can be embedded into it. As the new notion of minimal knowledge corresponds to expansions in a McDermott and Doyle style nonmonotonic modal logic, it is prone to problems of weakly grounded beliefs. Lin and Shoham [76] introduce an argument system based approach to nonmonotonic reasoning. This approach covers, e.g. autoepistemic logic. ffl Finitary characterization of stable expansions. The finitary characterization of stable expansions presented in this work is a variant of the finitary characterization ....

F. Lin and Y. Shoham. Argument systems: a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 245-- 255, Toronto, Canada, May 1989. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

....D is true if B or C is true. These considerations produce a number of criteria for selecting particular predictions based on how much one is prepared to deduce from the contradictions, and these criteria are clearly close to the acceptability classes mentioned above. In addition, Lin and Shoham [83] present a system which is also very similar to that of Krause at al. de ning arguments as chains of inferences, and showing that their framework can capture more speci c forms of nonmonotonic inference IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 8(3) 353 372. 30 such as defualt logic, ....

Lin, F. and Shoham, Y. (1989) Argument systems: a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning, Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Toronto, 245-255.

....and Thomason [63] presented a theory of mixed inheritance in nonmonotonic proof nets that resembles symbolic argumentation, where arguments are called paths. Paths are one dimensional lines of reasoning and are therefore simpler than argumentation systems where arguments are trees. Lin and Shoham [87] developed an argument system that captures some well known non monotonic logics (e.g. Reiter s default logic, McDermott and Doyle s non monotonic logic etc) In their system, they do not have logical hierarchy among arguments. So, it is not possible to determine which argument is undefeated. ....

F. Lin and Y. Shoham. Argument systems: a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. In Proceedings First International Conf. on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 245--255, 1989.

....If the defeated arguments taken into account are overlooked, different stages of argumentation cannot be distinguished, and orders of argumentation can disappear. 3 Arguments We start with the formal definition of an argument. Our notion of an argument is related to that of Lin and Shoham [LiSh89] and Vreeswijk [Vr91, Vr93] and is basically a tree of sentences in some language. Our approach to defeasible argumentation is independent of the choice of a language. Therefore, we treat a language as a set without any structure. A language does not even contain an element to denote negation or ....

....a, other than the argument a itself, is an intermediate conclusion of a. An argument in L is a rule, if it has the form S s, where S L and s L. For each argument a we define the set of arguments Subs(a) whose elements are the subarguments of a: Subs(a) Initials[Finals(a) 3 Lin and Shoham [LiSh89], Vreeswijk [Vr91, Vr93] and Dung [Du93] do more or less the same. Lin and Shoham use a language with negation, and Vreeswijk one with contradiction. Dung even goes a step further, and uses completely unstructured arguments. 4 If f: V W is a function and U V, then f[U] denotes the image of U ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

F. Lin and Y. Shoham, Argument Systems: a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning, in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, R. J. Brachman, H. J. Levesque and R. Reiter (eds.), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo (California), 1989, pp. 245-255.

....have been studied extensively in the past. Pollock [36] seems to be the first to use the concept of an argument as a tool to analyze defeasible reasoning. Around the same time, argument based reasoning was applied in legal reasoning (e.g. 38, 39, 44, 28] as well as in nonmonotonic reasoning [30]. Dung s work on argumentation and acceptability of arguments [16] provides a much deep understanding of negation as failure in terms of arguments. He shows that argumentation provides a unified framework for nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming with default as well as explicit negation. ....

F. Lin and Y. Shoham. Argument systems: a uniform basis for non-monotonic reasoning. In Proc. KR'89, pages 235--244, 1989.

....that arguments reinforce each other in such a way, he surprisingly rejects it. We do not agree, and think that arguments can accrue. In section 5, we come back to Pollock s argument against this principle of accrual. Defeasible argumentation has been formally studied by Pollock (1987 1994) Lin and Shoham (1989), Vreeswijk (1991, 1993) Simari and Loui (1992) Prakken (1993a, b) Dung (1993) and Bondarenko et al. 1993) These formalisms cannot adequately deal with the accrual of arguments. We present a formalism based on compound defeat that can. The idea to incorporate compound defeat in a formalism ....

....Then we define defeasible argumentation theories and their extensions. In the last section we come back to the main points of the formalism: compound defeat and accrual of arguments. 2 ARGUMENTS We start with the formal definition of an argument. Our notion of an argument is related to that of Lin and Shoham (1989) and Vreeswijk (1991, 1993) and is basically a tree of sentences in some language. Our approach to defeasible argumentation is independent of the choice of a language. Therefore, we treat a language as a set without any structure. A language does not even contain an element to denote negation or ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Lin, F. and Shoham, Y. (1989). Argument Systems: a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (eds. R. J. Brachman, H. J. Levesque and R. Reiter), pp. 245255.

.... The stronger result establishes a one to one correspondence between the stable models of an arbitrary general logic program Pi and the stable expansions of ff( Pi) Other mappings of logic programs into autoepistemic logic and its variants were investigated in [MT89] Lif89] Sch91] and [LS89] but none of these mappings seem to extend in a natural way to logic programs with classical negation and disjunction. Recently, several such mappings were independently found by several researchers [LS93] MT93] Che93] The mapping fi from [Lif93] and [Che93] translates rules of a disjunctive ....

F. Lin and Y. Shoham. Argument systems: a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. In R. Brachman, H. Levesque, and R. Reiter, editors, Proc. of the First Int'l Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 245-- 255, 1989.

....of stable models. A reduction to autoepistemic logic is given in [Gelfond1987] and the equivalence of the stable model approach to this semantics is established in [Gelfond and Lifschitz1988] Theorem 3) A reduction to default logic is described in [Bidoit and Froidevaux1987] see also [Lin and Shoham1989] and shown to be equivalent to stable models in [Bidoit and Froidevaux1988] Introspective circumscription is defined in [Lifschitz1989] and its relation to stable models is discussed in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of that paper. 6. The use of autoepistemic logic for this purpose leads to some ....

Fangzhen Lin and Yoav Shoham. Argument systems: a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. In Ronald Brachman, Hector Levesque, and Raymond Reiter, editors, Proc. of the First Int'l Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 245--255, 1989.

....operator. The stronger result establishes a one to one correspondence between the stable models of an arbitrary general logic program 5 and the stable expansions of ff(5) Other mappings of logic programs into autoepistemic logic and its variants were investigated in [MT89] Lif89] Sch91] and [LS89] but none of these mappings seem to extend in a natural way to logic programs with classical negation and disjunction. Recently, several such mappings were independently found by several researchers [LS93] MT93] Che93] The mapping fi from [Lif93] and [Che93] translates rules of a disjunctive ....

F. Lin and Y. Shoham. Argument systems: a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. In R. Brachman, H. Levesque, and R. Reiter, editors, Proc. of the First Int'l Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 245-- 255, 1989.

....we are not committed to a specific machinery of defeat, so that we maintain flexibility on this point as well. Over the years, a variety of systems has been proposed and discussed. Among the contributions that are relevant to this paper, we find work of (Pollock, 1987) Loui, 1987) Nute, 1988) (Lin and Shoham, 1989) and, again, Pollock (1991) The question might arise, then, as to why we do not use any of these systems in our present treatment. Pollock s system, for instance, is a much more detailed and well thought out exposition of defeasible reasoning than what is offered here. Also Loui s system is a ....

....well as one particular formalism that resembles the notion of abstract argumentation system presented here. In 1988, Lin and Shoham published a report in which the notion of argument system was introduced. Here are two statements, both taken from a later publication that was based on that report (Lin and Shoham, 1989). The key notions of argument systems are inference rules, arguments, argument structures, and completeness conditions. We show that default logic, autoepistemic logic, negation as failure principles, and circumscription are all special cases of the proposed framework. These statements are ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

LIN, F. AND Y. SHOHAM, "Argument Systems: A Uniform Basis for Nonmonotonic Reasoning, " Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 245-255, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers (1989).

....approach. In particular, they show that default logic and autoepistemic logic can be embedded into it. As the new notion of minimal knowledge corresponds to expansions in a McDermott and Doyle style nonmonotonic modal logic, it is prone to problems of weakly grounded beliefs. Lin and Shoham [76] introduce an argument system based approach to nonmonotonic reasoning. This approach covers, e.g. autoepistemic logic. ffl Finitary characterization of stable expansions. The finitary characterization of stable expansions presented in this work is a variant of the finitary characterization ....

F. Lin and Y. Shoham. Argument systems: a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 245-- 255, Toronto, Canada, May 1989. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

....but rather only determine the belief of propositions from forward chaining. 6.5 Argument systems Doyle [15] and Loui [32] have argued that decisions can be best seen in terms of arguments for and against some propositions. Other have viewed nonmonotonic reasoning in terms of arguments [42, 29, 31, 41]. The explanations that we use can be seen as premises for logical arguments. We determine the probability of some proposition by coming up with arguments for the proposition. Rather than treating argument based systems as an alternative to probabilistic reasoning, we treat the argument based ....

F. Lin and Y. Shoham. Argument systems: a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. In Proc. First International Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 245--255, Toronto, May 1989.

....there is some deeper or more comprehensive theory which combines or unifies all patterns (those known and those awaiting discovery) of nonmonotonic inference. Toward this end, some theories have been proposed as unifications or partial unifications of some of these ways of making assumptions [13, 25, 31, 32, 56]. At the same time, doubts about the existence of complete unifications have also been expressed because the different theories of nonmonotonic inference may indicate conflicting conclusions when the underlying default rules conflict. Early indications of difficulty appeared with Hanks and ....

Lin, F. and Shoham, Y. Argument systems: A uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. in: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 245--255, 1989.

....Second, the issue of deductive closure in argumentation (i.e. whether to allow argument steps corresponding to the underlying derivability relation) is something of an open question. Loui [1987] includes it. Pollock [1992a] does not, preferring explicit inference rules and no underlying reasoner. Lin and Shoham [1989] (about which more later) include it, but comment that an alternative would be to include any finite axiomatization of first order logic. My feeling is that it is intuitive to have underlying reasoners of various kinds whose conclusions can be used in arguments without recording all the details of ....

....to the prediction problem. In this chapter I will concentrate on the fact that the arguments being constructed are explicit objects that I will use as the representation of plans. Also, the ampliative nature of argument based reasoning is natural for interactive, dialogue oriented reasoning. Lin and Shoham [1989] introduce argument systems to serve as a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. They claim the approach is informally simple and intuitive, and formally show how the main nonmonotonic reasoning formalisms can be recast as special cases of their formalism. The definitions are in many respects ....

F. Lin and Y. Shoham, "Argument systems: A uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning," in R.J. Brachman, H.J. Levesque, and R. Reiter, editors, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-89), pages 245--255, Toronto, Ont., 15--18 May 1989. Morgan Kaufmann.

....theories is not, I believe, an impediment, since some of the theories solve problems that other theories cannot solve. There does not appear to be one all embracing theory that will handle everything, although some consider that the ultimate aim is to develop such a theory. See Lin and Shoham [LS89], and Marek, Nerode and Remmel [MNR90] for attempts to develop a unifying framework. It is not clear that an all embracing theory can be developed that will capture all of nonmonotonic reasoning. In attempting to develop such a theory, we may, however, learn a great deal. In a certain sense we ....

F. Lin and Y. Shoham. Argument systems: A uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. In Proceedings of 1st Intl. Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 245--255, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1989.

....Although our approach is based upon the abductive interpretation of negation as failure [16, 17] and Dung s admissibility and preferred semantics [10] it parallels many other approaches to argumentation developed independently in artificial intelligence. Among these, the work of Lin and Shoham s [33] is most clearly related to ours both in its aims and its methods. Lin and Shoham [33] similarly develop an abstract argumentation theoretic framework with the goal of capturing the semantics of many existing non monotonic logics. They show that different variants of a single abstract notion of ....

....[16, 17] and Dung s admissibility and preferred semantics [10] it parallels many other approaches to argumentation developed independently in artificial intelligence. Among these, the work of Lin and Shoham s [33] is most clearly related to ours both in its aims and its methods. Lin and Shoham [33] similarly develop an abstract argumentation theoretic framework with the goal of capturing the semantics of many existing non monotonic logics. They show that different variants of a single abstract notion of complete set of arguments corresponds to the standard semantics of default logic and ....

F. Lin, Y. Shoham, Argument systems: a uniform basis for non-monotonic reasoning. Proc. KR'89

....of logic and natural language [4,26,53] The understanding of the structure and acceptability of arguments is essential for a computer system to be able to engage in exchanges of arguments. Much work has been done to analyze the structure of arguments. Significant progress has been achieved here [58,9,1,5,6,22,37,45,46,60]. In contrast, it is still not clear how to understand the acceptability of arguments. The lack of progress here leaves the question about the semantical relations between argumentation and nonmonotonic reasoning remaining open until today. One of the goals of this paper is to provide an answer to ....

....and the nature of this problem. This problem has also been studied by Kakas, Mancarella and Dung in [29,29a] in the context of logic programming. We plan to look at this problem in our framework of argumentation in the future. Many other argument systems have also been proposed in the literature [37,45,46,57,60]. The focus of most of these works is on the structure of arguments. Vreeswijk classifies arguments into deductive arguments, statistically based inductive arguments and generic inductive arguments. According to Vreeswijk s classification, the systems in [37,57] are deductive and generic inductive ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Lin F., Shoham Y 'Argument Systems: an uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning', KR'89

....models. A reduction to autoepistemic logic is given in [ Gelfond, 1987 ] and the equivalence of the stable model approach to this semantics is established in [ Gelfond and Lifschitz, 1988 ] Theorem 3) A reduction to default logic is described in [ Bidoit and Froidevaux, 1987 ] see also [ Lin and Shoham, 1989 ] and shown to be equivalent to stable models in [ Bidoit and Froidevaux, 1988 ] Introspective circumscription is defined in [ Lifschitz, 1989 ] and its relation to stable models is discussed in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of that paper. 6. The use of autoepistemic logic for this purpose leads to ....

Fangzhen Lin and Yoav Shoham. Argument systems: a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. In Ronald Brachman, Hector Levesque, and Raymond Reiter, editors, Proc. of the First Int'l Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 245--255, 1989.

No context found.

Lin,F. and Shoham,Y.,1989, Argument systems: a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning, STAN-CS-89-1243, Stanford University, Department of Computer Science.

No context found.

:254--267. Lin, F. and Shoham, Y. Argument systems: a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. In KR 1989, pages

No context found.

Lin, F. and Shoham, Y., (1989). Argument Systems: A Uniform Basis for Nonmonotonic Reasoning, in: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 245-255, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

No context found.

Lin, F. and Shoham, Y., (1989). Argument Systems: A Uniform Basis for Nonmonotonic Reasoning, in: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 245-255, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

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