Abstract
There are a number of frameworks for modelling argumentation in logic. They incorporate a formal representation of individual arguments and techniques for comparing conflicting arguments. A common assumption for logic-based argumentation is that an argument is a pair \(\langle\Phi,\alpha\rangle\) where Φ is minimal subset of the knowledgebase such that Φ is consistent and Φ entails the claim α. Different logics provide different definitions for consistency and entailment and hence give us different options for argumentation. Classical propositional logic is an appealing option for argumentation but the computational viability of generating an argument is an issue. Here we propose ameliorating this problem by using connection graphs to give information on the ways that formulae of the knowledgebase can be used to minimally and consistently entail a claim. Using a connection graph allows for a substantially reduced search space to be used when seeking all the arguments for a claim from a knowledgebase. We provide a theoretical framework and algorithms for this proposal, together with some theoretical results and some preliminary experimental results to indicate the potential of the approach.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A model of reasoning based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34, 197–216 (2002)
Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Argumentative inference in uncertain and inconsistent knowledge bases. In: UAI 1993. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1445–1449. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1993)
Besnard, Ph., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence 128, 203–235 (2001)
Besnard, Ph., Hunter, A.: Practical first-order argumentation. In: AAAI 2005. Proc. of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 590–595. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)
Besnard, Ph., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)
Bibel, W.: Deduction: Automated Logic. Academic Press, London (1993)
Bryant, D., Krause, P., Vreeswijk, G.: Argue tuProlog: A lightweight argumentation engine for agent applications. In: Comma 2006. Computational Models of Argument, pp. 27–32. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)
Cayrol, C., Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: Dialectical proof theories for the credulous preferred semantics of argumentation frameworks. In: Benferhat, S., Besnard, P. (eds.) ECSQARU 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2143, pp. 668–679. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A., Loui, R.: Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys 32, 337–383 (2000)
Chesñevar, C., Simari, G., Godo, L.: Computing dialectical trees efficiently in possibilistic defeasible logic programming. In: Baral, C., et al. (eds.) LPNMR 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3662, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Dimopoulos, Y., Nebel, B., Toni, F.: On the computational complexity of assumption-based argumentation for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 141, 57–78 (2002)
Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: Dialectical proof procedures for assumption-based admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 170, 114–159 (2006)
Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: The complexity of logic-based abduction. Journal of the ACM 42, 3–42 (1995)
Elvang-Gøransson, M., Krause, P., Fox, J.: Dialectic reasoning with classically inconsistent information. In: UAI 1993. Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 114–121. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1993)
García, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1), 95–138 (2004)
Gent, I.P., Walsh, T.: Easy problems are sometimes hard. Artificial Intelligence 70(1–2), 335–345 (1994)
Kakas, A., Toni, F.: Computing argumentation in logic programming. Journal of Logic and Computation 9, 515–562 (1999)
Kowalski, R.: A proof procedure using connection graphs. Journal of the ACM 22, 572–595 (1975)
Kowalski, R.: Logic for problem solving. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1979)
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7, 25–75 (1997)
Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logical systems for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D. (ed.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000)
Selman, B., Mitchell, D.G., Levesque, H.J.: Generating hard satisfiability problems. Artificial Intelligence 81(1–2), 17–29 (1996)
Vreeswijk, G.: An algorithm to compute minimally grounded and admissible defence sets in argument systems. In: Comma 2006. Computational Models of Argument, pp. 109–120. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
� 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Efstathiou, V., Hunter, A. (2008). Algorithms for Effective Argumentation in Classical Propositional Logic: A Connection Graph Approach. In: Hartmann, S., Kern-Isberner, G. (eds) Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems. FoIKS 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4932. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77684-0_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77684-0_19
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-77683-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-77684-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)