Defeasible logic programming: DeLP-servers, contextual queries, and explanations for answers

References

• Alferes, J.J., Pereira, L.M., & Przymusinski, T.C. (1996). Strong and explicit negation in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1126, 143–163. doi: 10.1007/3-540-61630-6_10
   Google Scholar
• Alsinet, T., Chesñevar, C.I., Godo, L., Sandri, S., & Simari, G.R. (2008). Formalizing argumentative reasoning in a possibilistic logic programming setting with fuzzy unification. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 48, 711–729. doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2007.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baral, C., & Gelfond, M. (1994). Logic programming and knowledge representation. Journal of Logical Programming, 19/20, 73–148. doi: 10.1016/0743-1066(94)90025-6
   Google Scholar
• Belanger, M. (2007). Exploitation of argumentation models for mission analysis. In T. Roth-Berghofer, S. Schulz, D. Bahls & D.B. Leake (Eds.), Explanation-aware computing, papers from the 2007 AAAI workshop (pp. 64–67). Vol. WS-07-06 of AAAI Tech. Report. Vancouver, Canada: AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bench-Capon, T.J.M., & Dunne, P.E. (2007). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 619–641. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2007.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besnard, P., & Hunter, A. (2001). A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence, 128, 203–235. doi: 10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00071-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besnard, P., & Hunter, A. (2008). Elements of argumentation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., & Toni, F. (1997). An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93, 63–101. doi: 10.1016/S0004-3702(97)00015-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bondarenko, A., Toni, F., & Kowalski, R.A. (1993). An assumption-based framework for non-monotonic reasoning. In Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Lisbon, Portugal (pp. 171–189), Boston, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Budán, M.C., Gómez Lucero, M.J., Chesñevar, C.I., & Simari, G.R. (2012). Modelling time and reliability in structured argumentation frameworks. In G. Brewka, T. Eiter & S.A. McIlraith (Eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference, Rome, Italy, 2012. Rome, Italy, AAAI Press (Menlo Park, CA), pp. 578–582.
   Google Scholar
• Chesñevar, C.I., Maguitman, A.G., & Loui, R.P. (2000). Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys, 32, 337–383. doi: 10.1145/371578.371581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chesñevar, C.I., & Simari, G.R. (2007). A lattice-based approach to computing warranted beliefs in skeptical argumentation frameworks. In M.M. Veloso (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Hyderabad, India, January (pp. 280–285), AAAI Press (Menlo Park, CA), Hyderabad, India.
   Google Scholar
• Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G.R., Alsinet, T., & Godo, L. (2004). A logic programming framework for possibilistic argumentation with vague knowledge. In D.M. Chickering & J.Y. Halpern (Eds.), UAI (pp. 76–84). Banff, Canada: AUAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deagustini, C.A.D., Fulladoza Dalibón, S.E., Gottifredi, S., Falappa, M.A., Chesñevar, C.I., & Simari, G.R. (2013). Relational databases as a massive information source for defeasible argumentation. Knowledge-Based Systems (online).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dung, P.M. (1993). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming. In R. Bajcsy (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Chambéry, France (pp. 852–859), Morgan Kauffman (Burlington, MA), Chambéry, France.
   Google Scholar
• Dung, P.M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321–357. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferretti, E., Errecalde, M., García, A.J., & Simari, G.R. (2008). Decision rules and arguments in defeasible decision making. In P. Besnard, S. Doutre & A. Hunter (Eds.), Proc. 2nd Int. Conference on Computational Models of Arguments (COMMA) (pp. 171–182), Vol. 172 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. Toulouse, France: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• García, A.J. (2000). Defeasible logic programming: Definition, operational semantics and parallelism (Ph.D. thesis). Computer Science and Engineering Department, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahía Blanca, Argentina.
   Google Scholar
• García, A.J., Chesñevar, C.I., Rotstein, N.D., & Simari, G.R. (2013). Formalizing dialectical explanation support for argument-based reasoning in knowledge-based systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 40, 3233–3247. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García, D.R., García, A.J., & Simari, G.R. (2008). Defeasible reasoning and partial order planning. In S. Hartmann & G. Kern-Isberner (Eds.), FoIKS (pp. 311–328). Vol. 4932 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Pisa, Italy: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• García, A.J., Rotstein, N.D., Chesñevar, C.I., & Simari, G.R. (2009). Explaining why something is warranted in defeasible logic programming. In ExaCt 2009 (pp. 25–36). Pasadena, CA: IJCAI.
   Google Scholar
• García, A.J., Rotstein, N.D., Tucat, M., & Simari, G.R. (2007). An argumentative reasoning service for deliberative agents. In Z. Zhang & J.H. Siekmann (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management, KSEM 2007, November 28–30 (pp. 128–139). Vol. 4798 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Melbourne: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• García, A.J., & Simari, G.R. (2004). Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 4, 95–138. doi: 10.1017/S1471068403001674
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gómez, S.A., Chesñevar, C.I., & Simari, G.R. (2013). ONTOarg: A decision support framework for ontology integration based on argumentation. Expert Systems with Applications, 40, 1858–1870. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.10.025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guida, G., & Zanella, M. (1997). Bridging the gap between users and complex decision support systems: The role of justification. In ICECCS ’97: Proc. 3rd IEEE Int. Conf. on Eng. of Complex Computer Systems (pp. 229–238). Washington.
   Google Scholar
• Lacave, C., & Diez, F.J. (2004). A review of explanation methods for heuristic expert systems. Knowledge Engineering Review, 19, 133–146. doi: 10.1017/S0269888904000190
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lifschitz, V. (1996). Foundations of logic programs. In G. Brewka (Ed.), Principles of knowledge representation (pp. 69–128). Stanford: CSLI Pub.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, F., & Shoham, Y. (1989). Argument systems: A uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. In R.J. Brachman, H.J. Levesque & R. Reiter (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’89) (pp. 245–255). Toronto, Canada: Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Loui, R.P. (1987). Defeat among arguments: A system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence, 3, 100–106. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8640.1987.tb00178.x
   Google Scholar
• Martínez, M.V., García, A.J., & Simari, G.R. (2012). On the use of presumptions in structured defeasible reasoning. In B. Verheij, S. Szeider & S. Woltran (Eds.), Computational Models of Argument, Proceedings of COMMA 2012 (pp. 185–196). Vol. 245 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. Vienna, Austria: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy, J. (1980). Circumscription – a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13, 27–39. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(80)90011-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDermott, D.V., & Doyle, J. (1980). Non-monotonic logic I. Artificial Intelligence, 13, 41–72. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(80)90012-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Modgil, S., & Prakken, H. (2013). A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artificial Intelligence, 195, 361–397. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2012.10.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, R.C. (1984). Possible-world semantics for autoepistemic logic. In Workshop on Nonmotononic Reasoning (pp. 344–354), AAAI Press (Menlo Park, CA), New Paltz, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Moulin, B., Irandoust, H., Bélanger, M., & Desbordes, G. (2002). Explanation and argumentation capabilities: Towards the creation of more persuasive agents. Artificial Intelligence Review, 17, 169–222. doi: 10.1023/A:1015023512975
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nute, D. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. In Proceedings of the 20th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, Hawaii, USA (pp. 470–477).
   Google Scholar
• Nute, D. (1988). Defeasible reasoning: A philosophical analysis in Prolog. In J.H. Fetzer (Ed.), Aspects of artificial intelligence (pp. 251–288). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Pub.
   Google Scholar
• Pardo, P., & Godo, L. (2011). t-DeLP: A temporal extension of the defeasible logic programming argumentative framework. In S. Benferhat & J. Grant (Eds.), SUM 2011 Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (pp. 489–503). Vol. 6929 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Dayton, Ohio: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Pollock, J.L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11, 481–518. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1104_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollock, J.L. (1996). A general-purpose defeasible reasoner. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 6, 89–113. doi: 10.1080/11663081.1996.10510868
   Google Scholar
• Prakken, H. (2010). An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument & Computation, 1, 93–124. doi: 10.1080/19462160903564592
   Google Scholar
• Prakken, H., & Vreeswijk, G. (2002). Logics for defeasible argumentation. In D. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (pp. 218–319). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Pub.
   Google Scholar
• Rahwan, I., & Simari, G.R. (2009). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Reiter, R. (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intellence, 13, 81–132. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simari, G.R. (1989). A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Washington University, Department of Computer Science (Saint Louis, MO: EE.UU.).
   Google Scholar
• Simari, G.R., Chesñevar, C.I., & García, A.J. (1994a). Focusing inference in defeasible argumentation. In IV Iberoamerican Conference on Artificial Intelligence, October, IBERAMIA’94, Caracas, Venezuela.
   Google Scholar
• Simari, G.R., Chesñevar, C.I., & García, A.J. (1994b). The role of dialectics in defeasible argumentation. In XIV International Conference of the Chilenean Computer Science Society, November, Sociedad Chilena de Ciencias de la Computacion, Concepcion, Chile.
   Google Scholar
• Simari, G.R., & Loui, R.P. (1992). A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 53, 125–157. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(92)90069-A
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tucat, M., Garcia, A.J., & Simari, G.R. (2009). Using defeasible logic programming with contextual queries for developing recommender servers. In AAAI Fall Symposium Series, AAAI Press (Menlo Park, CA), Arlington, VA.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. (2004). A new dialectical theory of explanation. Philosophical Explorations, 7, 71–89. doi: 10.1080/1386979032000186863
   Google Scholar
• Ye, L.R., & Johnson, P.E. (1995). The impact of explanation facilities on user acceptance of expert systems advice. MIS Quarterly, 19, 157–172. doi: 10.2307/249686
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar