Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Logic Programming with Defaults and Argumentation Theories

  • Conference paper
Logic Programming (ICLP 2009)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 5649))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We define logic programs with defaults and argumentation theories, a new framework that unifies most of the earlier proposals for defeasible reasoning in logic programming. We present a model-theoretic semantics and study its reducibility and well-behavior properties. We use the framework as an elegant and flexible foundation to extend and improve upon Generalized Courteous Logic Programs (GCLP) [19]—one of the popular forms of defeasible reasoning. The extensions include higher-order and object-oriented features of Hilog and F-Logic [7,21]. The improvements include much simpler, incremental reasoning algorithms and more intuitive behavior. The framework and its Courteous family instantiation were implemented as an extension to the FLORA-2 system.

This work is part of the SILK (Semantic Inference on Large Knowledge) project sponsored by Vulcan, Inc.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 2(2), 255–287 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Antoniou, G., Maher, M.J.: Embedding defeasible logic into logic programs. In: Int’l Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 393–404 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baader, F., Hollunder, B.: Priorities on defaults with prerequisites, and their application in treating specificity in terminological default logic. Journal of Automated Reasoning 15(1), 41–68 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. AI 93(1-2), 63–101 (1997)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Preferred answer sets for extended logic programs. Artificial Intelligence 109, 297–356 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Prioritizing default logic. In: Intellectics and Computational Logic – Papers in Honour of Wolfgang Bibel, pp. 27–45. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen, W., Kifer, M., Warren, D.S.: HiLog: A foundation for higher-order logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming 15(3), 187–230 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Clark, K.L.: Negation as failure. In: Gallaire, H., Minker, J. (eds.) Logic and Data Bases, pp. 292–322. Plenum Press, New York (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Delgrande, J., Schaub, T., Tompits, H., Wang, K.: A classification and survey of preference handling approaches in nonmonotonic reasoning. Computational Intelligence 20(12), 308–334 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T., Tompits, H.: A framework for compiling preferences in logic programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 2, 129–187 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Dung, P.M., Son, T.C.: An argument-based approach to reasoning with specificity. Artificial Intelligence 133(1-2), 35–85 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G.: Computing preferred answer sets by meta-interpretation in answer set programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3(4), 463–498 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Ganjugunte, S.: Extending reasoning infrastructure for rules on the semantic web: Well-founded negation, incremental courteous logic programs, and interoperability tools in sweetrules. Master’s thesis, UMBC (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  14. García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory Practice of Logic Programming 4(2), 95–138 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Van Gelder, A., Ross, K.A., Schlipf, J.S.: The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. Journal of the ACM 38, 620–650 (1991)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Proceedings of ICLP/SLP, pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gelfond, M., Son, T.C.: Reasoning with prioritized defaults. In: Dix, J., Moniz Pereira, L., Przymusinski, T.C. (eds.) LPKR 1997. LNCS, vol. 1471, pp. 164–223. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Grosof, B.N.: Prioritized conflict handling for logic programs. In: Int’l Logic Programming Symposium, October 1997, pp. 197–211 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Grosof, B.N.: A courteous compiler from generalized courteous logic programs to ordinary logic programs. Technical Report Supplementary Update Follow-On to RC 21472, IBM (July 1999)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Karacapilidis, N.I., Papadias, D., Gordon, T.F.: An argumentation based framework for defeasible and qualitative reasoning. In: XIIIth Brazilian Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Advances in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1–10. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kifer, M., Lausen, G., Wu, J.: Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages. Journal of ACM 42, 741–843 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Lakshmanan, L.V.S., Thirunarayan, K.: Declarative frameworks for inheritance. In: Chomicki, J., Saake, G. (eds.) Logics for Databases and Information Systems, pp. 357–388. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Lloyd, J.W.: Foundations of Logic Programming, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Maier, F., Nute, D.: Relating defeasible logic to the well-founded semantics for normal logic programs. In: Int’l Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nute, D.: Defeasible logic. In: Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming, pp. 353–395. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pereira, L.M., Pinto, A.M.: Reductio ad absurdum argumentation in normal logic programs. In: ArgNMR workshop at LPNMR, pp. 96–113 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Prakken, H.: An argumentation framework in default logic. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 9(1-2), 93–132 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Prakken, H.: A logical framework for modelling legal argument. In: ICAIL 1993: 4th Int’l Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 1–9. ACM, New York (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Przymusinski, T.C.: Well-founded and stationary models of logic programs. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 12, 141–187 (1994)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132 (1980)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Sakama, C., Inoue, K.: Prioritized logic programming and its application to commonsense reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 123(1-2), 185–222 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Touretzky, D.S.: The Mathematics of Inheritance Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1986)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Wang, K., Zhou, L., Lin, F.: Alternating fixpoint theory for logic programs with priority. In: Palamidessi, C., Moniz Pereira, L., Lloyd, J.W., Dahl, V., Furbach, U., Kerber, M., Lau, K.-K., Sagiv, Y., Stuckey, P.J. (eds.) CL 2000. LNCS, vol. 1861, pp. 164–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Yang, G., Kifer, M.: Inheritance in rule-based frame systems: Semantics and inference. Journal on Data Semantics 2800, 69–97 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Zhang, Y., Wu, C.M., Bai, Y.: Implementing prioritized logic programming. AI Communications 14(4), 183–196 (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State University of New York at Stony Brook, USA

    Hui Wan, Michael Kifer, Paul Fodor & Senlin Liang

  2. Vulcan, Inc., USA

    Benjamin Grosof

Authors
  1. Hui Wan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin Grosof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Kifer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul Fodor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Senlin Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, Leeds, UK

    Patricia M. Hill

  2. Deptartment of Computer Science, Stony Brook University, 11794-4400, Stony Brook, NY, USA

    David S. Warren

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Wan, H., Grosof, B., Kifer, M., Fodor, P., Liang, S. (2009). Logic Programming with Defaults and Argumentation Theories. In: Hill, P.M., Warren, D.S. (eds) Logic Programming. ICLP 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5649. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02846-5_35

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02846-5_35

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-02845-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-02846-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation