Executable Logic for Dialogical Argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
Argumentation between agents through dialogue is an important cognitive activity. There have been a number of proposals for formalizing dialogical argumentation. However, each proposal involves a number of quite complex definitions, and there is significant diversity in the way different proposals define similar features. This complexity and diversity has hindered analysis and comparison of the space of proposals. To address this, we present a general approach to defining a wide variety of systems for dialogical argumentation. Our solution is to use an executable logic to specify individual systems for dialogical argumentation. This means we have a common language for specifying a wide range of systems, we can compare systems in terms of a range of standard properties, we can identify interesting classes of system, and we can execute the specification of each system to analyse it empirically.
منابع مشابه
Analysis of Dialogical Argumentation via Finite State Machines
Dialogical argumentation is an important cognitive activity by which agents exchange arguments and counterarguments as part of some process such as discussion, debate, persuasion and negotiation. Whilst numerous formal systems have been proposed, there is a lack of frameworks for implementing and evaluating these proposals. First-order executable logic has been proposed as a general framework f...
متن کاملProbabilistic Strategies in Dialogical Argumentation
In dialogical argumentation, a participant is often unsure what moves the other participant(s) might make. If the dialogue is proceeding according to some accepted protocol, then a participant might be able to determine what are the possible moves that the other might make, but the participant might be unsure as to which move will be chosen by the other agent. In this paper, propositional execu...
متن کاملAbduction and Dialogical Proof in Argumentation and Logic Programming
We develop a model of abduction in abstract argumentation, where changes to an argumentation framework act as hypotheses to explain the support of an observation. We present dialogical proof theories for the main decision problems (i.e., finding hypotheses that explain skeptical/credulous support) and we show that our model can be instantiated on the basis of abductive logic programs.
متن کاملSHAHID RAHMAN and WALTER A. CARNIELLI THE DIALOGICAL APPROACH TO PARACONSISTENCY
Being a pragmatic and not a referential approach to semantics, the dialogical formulation of paraconsistency allows the following semantic idea to be expressed within a semi-formal system: In an argumentation it sometimes makes sense to distinguish between the contradiction of one of the argumentation partners with himself (internal contradiction) and the contradiction between the partners (ext...
متن کاملOn Structure and Naturalness in Dialogical Models of Argumentation
It is recognized by researches from various disciplines (e.g.: informal logic, artificial intelligence & law, legal theory, computational dialectics) that argumentation is a process and that this process can adequately be modeled by means of a dialog. This paper evaluates three of these dialogical models: the best-known in general (MacKenzie’s DC), the best-known in AI & Law (The Pleadings Game...
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 2012