Argumentation: Reconciling Human and Automated Reasoning

نویسندگان

  • Antonis C. Kakas
  • Loizos Michael
  • Francesca Toni
چکیده

We study how using argumentation as an alternative foundation for logic gives a framework in which we can reconcile human and automated reasoning. We analyse this reconciliation between human and automated reasoning at three levels: (1) at the level of classical, strict reasoning on which, till today, automated reasoning and computing are based, (2) at the level of natural or ordinary human level reasoning as studied in cognitive psychology and which artificial intelligence, albeit in its early stages, is endeavouring to automate, and (3) at the level of the recently emerged cognitive computing paradigm where systems are required to be cognitively compatible with human reasoning based on common sense or expert knowledge, machine-learned from unstructured data in corpora over the web or other sources.

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Questions, Arguments, and Natural Language Semantics

Computational models of argumentation can be understood to bridge between human and automated reasoning. Argumentation schemes represent stereotypical, defeasible reasoning patterns. Critical questions are associated with argumentation schemes and are said to attack arguments. The paper highlights several issues with the current understanding of critical questions in argumentation. It provides ...

متن کامل

Argument and Reconciliation

We outline a formal theory of argumentation-theoretic reasoning which uniies and generalises many existing approaches to default reasoning, and which promises to be useful for practical reasoning in general and legal reasoning in particular. We discuss an extension of the argumentation theory to the problem of reconciling connicting arguments .

متن کامل

On Automated Defeasible Reasoning with Controlled Natural Language and Argumentation

We present an approach to reasoning with strict and defeasible rules over literals. A controlled natural language is employed as human/machine interface to facilitate the specification of knowledge and verbalization of results. Reasoning on the rules is done by a direct semantics that addresses several issues for current approaches to argumentation-based defeasible reasoning. Techniques from fo...

متن کامل

Argumentation for Propositional Logic and Nonmonotonic Reasoning

Argumentation has played a significant role in understanding and unifying under a common framework different forms of defeasible reasoning in AI. Argumentation is also close to the original inception of logic as a framework for formalizing human argumentation and debate. In this context, the purpose of this paper is twofold: to draw a formal connection between argumentation and classical reason...

متن کامل

A Unified Argumentation-Based Framework for Knowledge Qualification

Among the issues faced by an intelligent agent, central is that of reconciling the, often contradictory, pieces of knowledge — be those given, learned, or sensed — at its disposal. This problem, known as knowledge qualification, requires that pieces of knowledge deemed reliable in some context be given preference over the others. These preferences are typically viewed as encodings of reasoning ...

متن کامل

ذخیره 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 2016