Argumentation as a General Framework for Uncertain Reasoning
نویسندگان
چکیده
Argumentation is the process of constructing arguments about propositions, and the assign ment of statements of confidence to those propo sitions based on the nature and relative strength of their supporting arguments. The process is modelled as a labelled deductive system, in which propositions are doubly labelled with the grounds on which they are based and a represen tation of the confidence attached to the argument. Argument construction is captured by a general ised argument consequence relation based on the A, �-fragment of minimal logic. Arguments can be aggregated by a variety of numeric and sym bolic flattening functions. This approach appears to shed light on the common logical structure of a variety of quantitative, qualitative and defeasible uncertainty calculi.
منابع مشابه
An Implemented Context System that Combines Belief Reasoning, Metaphor-Based Reasoning and Uncertainty Handling
An implemented context-based reasoning system called ATT-Meta is sketched. The system can perform both reasoning about beliefs of agents and metaphor-based reasoning. In particular, it can perform metaphor-based reasoning about beliefs and reasoning acts. The metaphor-based reasoning and belief reasoning facilities are fully integrated into a general framework for uncertain reasoning. This fram...
متن کاملSpecializing the Logic of Multiple-Valued Argumentation to the Jaina Seven-Valued Logic
Argumentation is a dialectical process of knowing things (inquiry) and justifying them (advocacy) in general. Computational argumentation has been recognized as a social computing mechanism or paradigm in the multi-agent systems community. We have developed a computational argumentation framework that basically consists of EALP (Extended Annotated Logic Programming) and LMA (Logic of Multipleva...
متن کاملMetalevel argumentation
The abstract nature of Dung’s seminal theory of argumentation accounts for its widespread application as a general framework for various species of nonmonotonic reasoning, and, more generally, reasoning in the presence of conflict, whether such conflict arises given uncertain or incomplete information or as a result of differing opinions or preferences. In this paper we formalise reasoning abou...
متن کاملArgumentation-Based Qualitative Preference Modelling with Incomplete and Uncertain Information
This paper presents an argumentation-based framework for the modelling of, and automated reasoning about multi-attribute preferences of a qualitative nature. The framework presents preferences according to the lexicographic ordering that is well-understood by humans. Preferences are derived in part from knowledge. Knowledge, however, may be incomplete or uncertain. The main contribution of the ...
متن کاملOn argument strength
Everyday life reasoning and argumentation is defeasible and uncertain. I present a probability logic framework to rationally reconstruct everyday life reasoning and argumentation. Coherence in the sense of De Finetti is used as the basic rationality norm. I discuss two basic classes of approaches to construct measures of argument strength. The first class imposes a probabilistic relation betwee...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 1993