Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Eight Dialectic Benchmarks Discussed By Two Artificial Localist Disputors

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dispute types can roughly be divided in two classes. One class in whichthe notion of justification is fundamental, and one in which thenotion of opposition is fundamental. Further, for every singledispute type there exist various types of protocols to conduct such adispute. Some protocols permit local search (a process in which oneis allowed to justify claims partially, with the possibility to extendjustifications on request later), while other protocols rely on globalsearch (a process in which only entire arguments count as justifications).This paper integrates the two above-mentioned types of dispute withthe use of a protocol that permits local search. The locality aspect isrelatively new to computer scientists, while the detailed computationalelaboration of the approach is relatively new to philosophical logicians.The proposed protocol is demonstrated with the help of eight benchmarks.These benchmarks are centered around the problem that co-concludingarguments sometimes accrue, and sometimes do not.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Barth, E. and E. Krabbe: 1982, From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. and Y. Singer: 1999, ‘Simple, Fast, and Effective Rule Learner’, in Proceedings of the AAAI-99 (To appear).

  • de Kleer, J.: 1986, ‘An Assumption-Based TMS’, Artificial Intelligence, 28(2), 163-196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempster, A.: 1968, ‘A Generalization of Bayesian Inference’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 30, 205-247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druzdzel, M. and M. Henrion: 1993, ‘Efficient reasoning in Qualitative Probabilistic Networks’, in Proceedings of the 11th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAL93),Washington, DC, pp. 548-553.

  • Ginsberg, M. (ed.): 1987, Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, A. and D. Dankel: 1993, The Engineering of Knowledge-based Systems: Theory and Practice, Prentice Hall, Englewoods Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T. et al.: 1996, ‘The Zeno argumentation Framework’, in Proceedings of the Computational Dialectics Workshop, at FAPR Bonn. GMD. Hypertext document.

  • Hamblin, C.: 1970, Fallacies, Methuen, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, F. V.: 1996, An Introduction to Bayesian Networks, UCL Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kivinen, J. et al.: 1992, ‘Learning Hierarchical Rule Sets’, in Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, pp. 37-44.

  • Krabbe, E.: 1985, ‘Formal Systems of Dialogue Rules’, Synthese 63, 295-328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krabbe, E.: 2000, ‘The Problem of Retraction in Critical Discussion’, this Volume.

  • Lifschitz, V.: 1988, ‘Benchmark Problems for Formal Nonmonotonic Reasoning, version 2.00’, in M. R. et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Second Workshop in Non-monotonic Reasoning, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer Verlag, Grassau, FRG, pp. 202-219.

  • Loui, R.: 1989, ‘Benchmark Problems for Nonmonotonic Systems’, Handout. Distributed at the Workshop on Defeasible Reasoning with Specificity and Multiple Inheritance.

  • Loui, R.: 1991, ‘Argument and Belief: Were We Stand in the Keynesian Tradition’, Minds and Machines 1, 357-365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R.: 1994, ‘Argument and Arbitration Games’, in R. Jioni and T. Gordon (eds), Notes of the Computational Dialectics Workshop '94 at AAAI94, St. Louis. Dept. of CS, Washington University, pp. 72-83.

  • Loui, R.: 1998, ‘Process and Policy: Resource-Bounded Nondemonstrative Reasoning’, Computational Intelligence 14(1), 1-38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R., J. Norman, J. Olson, and A. Merrill: 1993, ‘A Design for Reasoning with Policies, Precedents, and Rationales’, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on AI & Law, ACM Press, New-York, pp. 202-211. Also issued as report WUCS-93-03, Department of Computer Science, Washington University St. Louis, Missouri.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGraw, K. and K. Harbison-Briggs: 1989, Knowledge Acquisition: Principles and Guidelines, Prentice-Hall, New-York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, T.: 1997, Machine Learning, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, S.: 1998, ‘A Proof Theoretic Approach to Qualitative Probabilistic Reasoning’, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 19, 265-297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, J.: 1988, Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference, Morgan Kaufmann, Palo Alto CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J.: 1995, Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J.: 1996, Implementing Defeasible Reasoning. Presented at the Computational Dialectic Workshop, at FAPR'96, June 3-7, 1996, Bonn. Cf. http://nathan.gmd.de/projects/zeno/fapr/programme.ht ml.

  • Prakken, H.: 1999, ‘On Formalising Burden of Proof in Legal Argument’, in Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Legal Knowledge-Based Systems (JURIX'99), Leuven, Belgium, pp. 85-97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H.: 2000, ‘Relating Protocols for Dynamic Dispute with Logics for Defeasible Argumentation’, this issue.

  • Prakken, H. and G. Sartor: 1997, ‘Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities’, Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7, 25-75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinfrank, M.: 1989, ‘Logical Foundations of Truth Maintenance’, in J. Martins and E. Morgado (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Portugese Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 348-361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, R.: 1987, ‘Non-Monotonic Reasoning’, Annual Reviews of Computer Science 2, 147-186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, R. and J. de Kleer: 1987, ‘Foundations of Assumption-Based Truth Maintenance Systems’, in Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp.183-188.

  • Rescher, N.: 1977, Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge, State University of New York Press, Albany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer, G.: 1976, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simari, G. and R. Loui: 1992, ‘A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation’, Artificial Intelligence 53,125-157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefik, M.: 1995, Introduction to Knowledge Systems, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P.: 1992, Conceptual Revolutions, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Paperback edition, 1993. Italian translation published by Guerini e Associati, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S.: 1985, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press.

  • Verbeurgt, K. and P. Thagard: 1998, ‘Coherence as Constraint Satisfaction’, Cognitive Science 22, 1-24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheij, H.: 1995, ‘Accrual of Arguments in Defeasible Argumentation’, in C. Witteveen, W. van der Hoek, J.-J. C. Meyer and B. van Linder (eds), Proceedings of the 2nd Dutch/German Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Utrecht, pp. 217-224.

  • Verheij, H.: 1996, Rules, Reasons, Arguments: Formal studies of Argumentation and Defeat, Department of Metajuridica, University of Limburg, Maastricht, the Netherlands. dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheij, H. et al.: 1998, ‘An Integrated Viewon Rules and Principles’, Artificial Intelligence and Law 6(1), 3-26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G.: 1995a, ‘IACAS: An Implementation of Chisholm's Principles of Knowledge’, in C. Witteveen, W. van der Hoek, J.-J. C. Meyer and B. van Linder (eds), The Proceedings of the 2nd Dutch/German Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Delft University of Technology, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, pp. 225-234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G.: 1995b, ‘Interpolation of Benchmark Problems in Defeasible Reasoning’, in M. DeGlas (ed.), Proceedings of the Second World Conference on the Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence, Angkor, Paris, pp. 453-468. Formerly presented at the Second Symposium on Al and Mathematics, 1992, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G.: 1999, ‘Searching for a Computational Heuristic to Expand Formal Theories’, Tech. rep., University of Groningen, Department of Philosophy.

  • Vreeswijk, G.: 2000, ‘Representation of Formal Dispute with a Standing Order’, in Al & Law, special issue ‘Dialectical Legal Argument: Formal and Informal Models’, Vol. 8, Nos. 2/3, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 203-230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. and E. Krabbe: 1995, Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning, Vol. 90. State University of New York Press.

  • Wellman, M.: 1990, ‘Fundamental Concepts of Qualitative Probabilistic Networks’, Artificial Intelligence 44, 257-303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, J. and D. Walton: 1982, Argument: The Logic of the Fallacies, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Groningen, A-weg 30, 9718, CW Groningen, The Netherlands

    Gerard A. W. Vreeswijk

Authors
  1. Gerard A. W. Vreeswijk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vreeswijk, G.A.W. Eight Dialectic Benchmarks Discussed By Two Artificial Localist Disputors. Synthese 127, 221–253 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010374523108

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010374523108

Keywords

Search

Navigation