On resolving conflicts between arguments

Computational Intelligence

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 469-497

  Roos, Nico ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; FORMAL LOGIC; THEOREM PROVING;

DEFEASIBLE RULES; NONMONOTONIC REASONING;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 0034250287     PISSN: 08247935     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/0824-7935.00120     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. BONDARENKO, A., P. M. DUNG, R. A. KOWALSKI, and F. TONI. 1997. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93:63-101.
2. BREWKA, G. 1994. Reasoning about priorities in default logic. Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 940-945.
3. CAYROL, C. 1995. On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence-based entailment. Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1443-1448.
4. DOYLE, J. 1979. A truth maintenance system. Artificial Intelligence, 12:231-272.
5. DUNG, P. M. 1993. The acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joined Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 852-857.
6. 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.
7. FOX, J., P. KRAUSE, and S. AMBLER. 1992. Arguments, contradictions and practical reasoning. Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 623-627.
8. GABBAY, D. M. 1985. Theoretical foundations of non-monotonic reasoning in expert systems. In Logic and models of concurrent systems. Edited by K. R. Apt. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 439-457.
9. GEFFNER, H. 1994. Causal default reasoning, principles and algorithms, Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 245-250.
10. GEFFNER, H., and J. PEARL. 1992. Conditional entailment: Bridging two approaches to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence. 53:209-244.
11. GOODWIN, J. W. 1987. A theory and system for non-monotonic reasoning. Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
12. HUNTER A. 1994. Defeasible reasoning with structured information. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 281-292.
13. KRAUSE, P., S. AMBLER, M. ELVANG-GØRANSSON, and J. Fox. 1995. A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Computational Intelligence, 11:113-131.
14. KRAUS, S., D. LEHMANN, and M. MAGIDOR. 1990. Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence, 44:167-207.
15. LIN, F., and Y. SHOHAM 1989. Argument systems: A uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 245-255.
16. LOUI, R. P. 1987. Defeat among arguments: A system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence, 3:100-106.
17. LOUI, R. P. 1998. Process and policy: Resource-bounded nondemonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 14:1-38.
18. MAKINSON, D. 1988. General theory of cumulative inference. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning. Edited by M. Reinfrank, J. de Kleer, M. L. Ginsberg, and E. Sandewall. Springer-Verlag, pp. 1-18.
19. NUTE, D. 1988. Defeasible reasoning and decision support systems. Decision Support Systems, 4:97-110.
20. NUTE, D. 1994. A decidable quantified defeasible logic. In Logic, Methodology And Philosophy of Science IX. Edited by D. Prawitz, B. Skyrms, and D. Westerståhl. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp. 97-110.
21. POLLOCK, J. L. 1987. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11:481-518.
22. POLLOCK, J. L. 1992. How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence, 57:1-42.
23. POLLOCK, J. L. 1994. Justification and defeat. Artificial Intelligence, 67:377-407.
24. POOLE, D. 1985. On the comparison of theories: Preferring the most specific explanation. Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 144-147.
25. POOLE, D. 1988. A logical framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 36:27-47.
26. PRAKKEN, H. 1993. Logical tools for modelling legal arguments. Ph.D. thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
27. PRAKKEN, H., and G. VREESWIJK. 2000. Logics for defeasible argumentation. In The Handbook of Philosophical Logic. Edited by D.N. Gabbay. Kluwer, forthcoming.
28. REINFRANK, M. 1989. Fundamentals and logical foundations of truth maintenance. Ph.D. thesis, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
29. REITER, R. 1980. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:81-132.
30. ROOS, N. 1998. Reasoning by cases in default logic. Artificial Intelligence 99:165-183.
31. SIMARI, G. R., and R. P. LOUI. 1992. A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 53:125-157.
32. TOULMIN, S. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
33. VREESWIJK, G. 1991. The feasibility of defeat in defeasible reasoning. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 526-534.
34. VREESWIJK, G. 1997. Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence, 90:225-279.
35. WITTEVEEN, C., and G. BREWKA. 1993. Skeptical reason maintenance and belief revision. Artificial Intelligence, 61:1-36.