Defeasible Logic on an Embedded Microcontroller

Defeasible logic is a system of reasoning in which rules have exceptions, and when rules conflict, the one that applies most specifically to the situation wins out. This paper reports a successful application of defeasible logic to the implementation of an embedded control system. The system was programmed in d-Prolog (a defeasible extension of Prolog), and the inferences were compiled into a truth table that was encoded on a low-end PIC microcontroller.Advantages of defeasible logic include conciseness and correct handling of the passage of time. It is distinct from fuzzy logic and probabilistic logic, addressing a different set of problems.     

t-DeLP: an argumentation-based Temporal Defeasible Logic Programming framework

The aim of this paper is to propose an argumentation-based defeasible logic, called t-DeLP, that focuses on forward temporal reasoning for causal inference. We extend the language of the DeLP logical framework by associating temporal parameters to literals. A temporal logic program is a set of basic temporal facts and (strict or defeasible) durative rules. Facts and rules combine into durative arguments representing temporal processes. As usual, a dialectical procedure determines which arguments are undefeated, and hence which literals are warranted, or defeasibly follow from the program. t-DeLP, though, slightly differs from DeLP in order to accommodate temporal aspects, like the persistence of facts. The output of a t-DeLP program is a set of warranted literals, which is first shown to be non-contradictory and be closed under sub-arguments. This basic framework is then modified to deal with programs whose strict rules encode mutex constraints. The resulting framework is shown to satisfy stronger logical properties like indirect consistency and closure.     

A formal approach to negotiating agents development

This paper presents a formal and executable approach to capture the behaviour of parties involved in a negotiation. A party is modeled as a negotiating agent composed of a communication module, a control module, a reasoning module, and a knowledge base. The control module is expressed as a statechart, and the reasoning module as a defeasible logic program. A strategy specification therefore consists of a statechart, a set of defeasible rules, and a set of initial facts. Such a specification can be dynamically plugged into an agent shell incorporating a statechart interpreter and a defeasible logic inference engine, in order to yield an agent capable of participating in a given type of negotiations. The choice of statecharts and defeasible logic with respect to other formalisms is justified against a set of desirable criteria, and their suitability is illustrated through concrete examples of bidding and multi-lateral bargaining scenarios.     

A modular translation from defeasible nets to defeasible logics

Abstract

The sceptical inheritance nets introduced in Horty et al. [Proceedings of AAAI-87 (1987):358-363] are translated into a version of Nute's defeasible logic. Moreover this translation is modular in the sense of Thomason and Horty [Non-Monotonic Reasoning. Springer-Verlag (1989):234]. Apart from the importance of relating two nonmonotonic reasoning formalisms, this result shows that the reasoning mechanisms underlying defeasible logic and defeasible nets are the same. Yet they were invented independently and set in totally different contexts. This is perhaps some evidence that the underlying nonmonotonic reasoning mechanism is mainly correct. We also observe that since defeasible logics can contain both absolute and defeasible rules, they provided a uniform setting for considering nets which contain both strict and defeasible arcs.     

谈判代理开发典型案例的研究

本文通过两个典型案例说明一个灵活有效的谈判代理开发方法.使用状态图和可废止逻辑规则说明谈判策略,将其动态地插入到一个集状态解释器和可废止逻辑推理引擎于一体的代理壳中,就可以获得所需要的自动谈判代理.由于状态图和可废止逻辑有很强的适应性,当应用环境发生变化时,只需调整其标准和规则的集合.     

The epistemic basis of defeasible reasoning

This article argues that: (i) Defeasible reasoning is the use of distinctive procedures for belief revision when new evidence or new authoritative judgment is interpolated into a system of beliefs about an application domain. (ii) These procedures can be explicated and implemented using standard higher-order logic combined with epistemic assumptions about the system of beliefs. The procedures mentioned in (i) depend on the explication in (ii), which is largely described in terms of a Prolog program, EVID, which implements a system for interactive, defeasible reasoning when combined with an application knowledge base. It is shown that defeasible reasoning depends on a meta-level Closed World Assumption applied to the relationship between supporting evidence and a defeasible conclusion based on this evidence. Thesis (i) is then further defended by showing that the EVID explication of defeasible reasoning has sufficient representational power to cover a wide variety of practical applications of defeasible reasoning, especially in the context of decision making.     

Abstract argumentation

In this paper we explore the thesis that the role of argumentation in practical reasoning in general and legal reasoning in particular is to justify the use of defeasible rules to derive a conclusion in preference to the use of other defeasible rules to derive a conflicting conclusion. The defeasibility of rules is expressed by means of non-provability claims as additional conditions of the rules.We outline an abstract approach to defeasible reasoning and argumentation which includes many existing formalisms, including default logic, extended logic programming, non-monotonic modal logic and auto-epistemic logic, as special cases. We show, in particular, that the admissibility semantics for all these formalisms has a natural argumentation-theoretic interpretation and proof procedure, which seem to correspond well with informal argumentation.In the admissibility semantics there is only one way for one argument to attack another, namely by undermining one of its non-provability claims. In this paper, we show how other kinds of attack between arguments, specifically how rebuttal and priority attacks, can be reduced to the undermining of non-provability claims.     

DR-Prolog: A System for Defeasible Reasoning with Rules and Ontologies on the Semantic Web

Nonmonotonic rule systems are expected to play an important role in the layered development of the semantic Web. Defeasible reasoning is a direction in nonmonotonic reasoning that is based on the use of rules that may be defeated by other rules. It is a simple, but often more efficient approach than other nonmonotonic rule systems for reasoning with incomplete and inconsistent information. This paper reports on the implementation of a system for defeasible reasoning on the Web. The system 1) is syntactically compatible with RuleML, 2) features strict and defeasible rules, priorities, and two kinds of negation, 3) is based on a translation to logic programming with declarative semantics, 4) is flexible and adaptable to different intuitions within defeasible reasoning, and 5) can reason with rules, RDF, RDF Schema, and (parts of) OWL ontologies     

Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference

This paper presents a system of nonmonotonic reasoning with defeasible rules. The advantage of such a system is that many multiple extension problems can be solved without additional explicit knowledge; ordering competing extensions can be done in a natural and defeasible way, via syntactic considerations. The objectives closely resemble Poole's objectives.
But the logic is different from Poole's. The most important difference is that this system allows the kind of chaining that many other nonmonotonic systems allow. Also, the form in which the inference system is presented is quite unusual. It mimics an established system of inductive logic, and it treats defeat in the way of the epistemologist-philosophers.
The contributions are both of content and of form: (content) the kinds of defeat that are considered, and (form) the way in which defeat is treated in the rules of inference.     

On Resolving Conflicts Between Arguments

Argument systems are based on the idea that one can construct arguments for propositions—structured reasons justifying the belief in a proposition. Using defeasible rules, arguments need not be valid in all circumstances, therefore, it might be possible to construct an argument for a proposition as well as its negation. When arguments support conflicting propositions, one of the arguments must be defeated, which raises the question of which (sub‐) arguments can be subject to defeat. In legal argumentation, metarules determine the valid arguments by considering the last defeasible rule of each argument involved in a conflict. Since it is easier to evaluate arguments using their last rules, can a conflict be resolved by considering only the last defeasible rules of the arguments involved? We propose a new argument system where, instead of deriving a defeat relation between arguments, arguments for the defeat of defeasible rules are constructed. This system allows us to determine a set of valid (undefeated) arguments in linear time using an algorithm based on a JTMS, allows conflicts to be resolved using only the last rules of the arguments, allows us to establish a relation with Default Logic, and allows closure properties such as cumulativity to be proved. We propose an extension of the argument system based on a proposal for reasoning by cases in default logic.     

An argument‐based decision support system for assessing natural language usage on the basis of the web corpus

The last decade bears witness to an exponential growth in the use of the World Wide Web. As a result, a huge number of documents are accessible online through search engines, whose pattern‐matching capabilities have turned out to be useful for mining the Web space as a particular kind of linguistic corpus, commonly known as the Web Corpus. This article presents a novel, argumentative approach to providing proactive assistance for language usage assessment on the basis of usage indices, which are good indicators of the suitability of an expression on the basis of the Web Corpus. The user preferences consist of a number of (possibly defeasible) rules and facts that encode different aspects of adequate language usage, defining the acceptability of different terms on the basis of the computed usage indices. A defeasible argumentation system determines if a given expression is ultimately acceptable by analyzing a defeasible logic program that encodes the user's preferences. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Int J Int Syst 21: 1151–1180, 2006.     

Defeasible reasoning and logic programming

The general conditions of epistemic defeat are naturally represented through the interplay of two distinct kinds of entailment, deductive and defeasible. Many of the current approaches to modeling defeasible reasoning seek to define defeasible entailment via model-theoretic notions like truth and satisfiability, which, I argue, fails to capture this fundamental distinction between truthpreserving and justification-preserving entailments. I present an alternative account of defeasible entailment and show how logic programming offers a paradigm in which the distinction can be captured, allowing for the modeling of a larger range of types of defeat. This is possible through a natural extension of the declarative and procedural semantics of Horn clauses.     

Reconstructing Popov v. Hayashi in a framework for argumentation with structured arguments and Dungean semantics

In this article the argumentation structure of the court??s decision in the Popov v. Hayashi case is formalised in Prakken??s (Argument Comput 1:93?C124; 2010) abstract framework for argument-based inference with structured arguments. In this framework, arguments are inference trees formed by applying two kinds of inference rules, strict and defeasible rules. Arguments can be attacked in three ways: attacking a premise, attacking a conclusion and attacking an inference. To resolve such conflicts, preferences may be used, which leads to three corresponding kinds of defeat, after which Dung??s (Artif Intell 77:321?C357; 1995) abstract acceptability semantics can be used to evaluate the arguments. In the present paper the abstract framework is instantiated with strict inference rules corresponding to first-order logic and with defeasible inference rules for defeasible modus ponens and various argument schemes. The main techniques used in the formal reconstruction of the case are rule-exception structures and arguments about rule validity. Arguments about socio-legal values and the use of precedent cases are reduced to arguments about rule validity. The tree structure of arguments, with explicit subargument relations between arguments, is used to capture the dependency relations between the elements of the court??s decision.     

Self-defeating arguments

An argument is self-defeating when it contains defeaters for some of its own defeasible lines. It is shown that the obvious rules for defeat among arguments do not handle self-defeating arguments correctly. It turns out that they constitute a pervasive phenomenon that threatens to cripple defeasible reasoning, leading to almost all defeasible reasoning being defeated by unexpected interactions with self-defeating arguments. This leads to some important changes in the general theory of defeasible reasoning.     

Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks

The abstract nature of Dung's seminal theory of argumentation accounts for its widespread application as a general framework for various species of non-monotonic reasoning, and, more generally, reasoning in the presence of conflict. A Dung argumentation framework is instantiated by arguments and a binary conflict based attack relation, defined by some underlying logical theory. The justified arguments under different extensional semantics are then evaluated, and the claims of these arguments define the inferences of the underlying theory. To determine a unique set of justified arguments often requires a preference relation on arguments to determine the success of attacks between arguments. However, preference information is often itself defeasible, conflicting and so subject to argumentation. Hence, in this paper we extend Dung's theory to accommodate arguments that claim preferences between other arguments, thus incorporating meta-level argumentation based reasoning about preferences in the object level. We then define and study application of the full range of Dung's extensional semantics to the extended framework, and study special classes of the extended framework. The extended theory preserves the abstract nature of Dung's approach, thus aiming at a general framework for non-monotonic formalisms that accommodate defeasible reasoning about as well as with preference information. We illustrate by formalising argument based logic programming with defeasible priorities in the extended theory.     

ANGLE: An autonomous, normative and guidable agent with changing knowledge

Some emerging computing systems (especially autonomic computing systems) raise several challenges to autonomous agents, including (1) how to reflect the dynamics of business requirements, (2) how to coordinate with external agents with sufficient level of security and predictability, and (3) how to perform reasoning with dynamic and incomplete knowledge, including both informational knowledge (observations) and motivational knowledge (for example, policy rules and contract rules). On the basis of defeasible logic and argumentation, this paper proposes an autonomous, normative and guidable agent model, called ANGLE, to cope with these challenges. This agent is established by combining beliefs-desires-intentions (BDI) architecture with policy-based method and the mechanism of contract-based coordination. Its architecture, knowledge representation, as well as reasoning and decision-making, are presented in this paper. ANGLE is characteristic of the following three aspects. First, both its motivational knowledge and informational knowledge are changeable, and allowed to be incomplete, inconsistent/conflicting. Second, its knowledge is represented in terms of extended defeasible logic with modal operators. Different from the existing defeasible theories, its theories (including belief theory, goal theory and intention theory) are dynamic (called dynamic theories), reflecting the variations of observations and external motivational knowledge. Third, its reasoning and decision-making are based on argumentation. Due to the dynamics of underlying theories, argument construction is not a monotonic process, which is different from the existing argumentation framework where arguments are constructed incrementally.     

逻辑程序开发及其错误防治的若干实用法则

文章用一种通俗的、与逻辑程序设计中惯用的不同术语给出一组通俗的、在思想和概念上也截然不同于传统的逻辑程序设计研究的，有关逻辑程序开发的规则和方法。     

Linearizing some recursive logic programs

We give a sufficient condition under which the least fixpoint of the equation X=a+f(X)X equals the least fixpoint of the equation X=a+f(a)X. We then apply that condition to recursive logic programs containing chain rules: we translate it into a sufficient condition under which a recursive logic program containing n⩾2 recursive calls in the bodies of the rules is equivalent to a linear program containing at most one recursive call in the bodies of the rules. We conclude with a discussion comparing our condition with the other approaches to linearization studied in the literature