article

How to reason defeasibly

Author:

John L. PollockAuthors Info & Claims

Artificial Intelligence, Volume 57, Issue 1

Pages 1 - 42

https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(92)90103-5

Published: 01 September 1992 Publication History

Abstract

No abstract available.

Cited By

View all

Chen CPardo Pvan der Torre LYu L(2023)Weakest Link in Formal Argumentation: Lookahead and Principle-Based AnalysisLogic and Argumentation10.1007/978-3-031-40875-5_5(61-83)Online publication date: 10-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-40875-5_5
Baroni PFermé EGiacomin MSimari G(2022)Belief Revision and Computational Argumentation: A Critical ComparisonJournal of Logic, Language and Information10.1007/s10849-022-09369-831:4(555-589)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10849-022-09369-8
Governatori GBench-Capon TVerheij BAraszkiewicz MFrancesconi EGrabmair M(2022)Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: the first decadeArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-022-09329-430:4(481-519)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10506-022-09329-4
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

How to reason defeasibly
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Knowledge representation and reasoning
  2. Symbolic and algebraic manipulation
    1. Symbolic and algebraic algorithms
      1. Theorem proving algorithms

Recommendations

Formal Definitions of Reason Fallacies to Aid Defect Exploration in Argument Gaming
ICLA 2009: Proceedings of the 3rd Indian Conference on Logic and Its Applications - Volume 5378

Reason fallacies are fallacious reasons presented in arguments during argumentative discussions. The fallacious reasons do not support the claim of argument and therefore, the argument gets defeated. Defect exploration is the process of analysing ...
Social obligation as reason for action

Social obligations are typical external reasons for action. In this paper two notions of reason for action are distinguished: a reason for the agent and the agent's reason. The focus will be on the latter notion. It deals with the agent's own ...
Give me a reason: hedonic product choice and justification
CHI EA '08: CHI '08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Recently, researchers and practitioners of Human-Computer Interaction started to distinguish instrumen-tal, task-related, pragmatic quality aspects (i.e., use-fulness, usability) of interactive products from non-instrumental, self-referential, hedonic ...

Reviews

Reviewer: Kalman Balogh

Representation of and reasoning on nonmonotonic, defeasible knowledge are important. This subject has a wide body of literature; for example, Pearl [1] and Geffner [2] give rankings of models and relative defaults (higher ranked models stand for more surprising situations) derived from qualitative abstractions of an agent's experience. This paper is based on the author's philosophical investigations from the early 1970s, and summarizes the refinements of this theory as he has applied it to AI. This application serves as a constructive background for the OSCAR computer system, developed to demonstrate these ideas. Pollock categorizes the defeaters of reasons, and treats the complicated cases of collective and provisional defeat. He gives the criteria of adequacy for a defeasible reasoner. He then describes the interest-driven and interrupt-driven defeasible reasoners. Finally, interesting examples taken from OSCAR show retracting and reinstating conclusions.

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

Artificial Intelligence Volume 57, Issue 1

Sept. 1992

136 pages

ISSN:0004-3702

Editor:
Daniel G. Bobrow
Xerox Corp., Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, CA

Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd.

United Kingdom

Publication History

Published: 01 September 1992

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

79
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 21 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

Chen CPardo Pvan der Torre LYu L(2023)Weakest Link in Formal Argumentation: Lookahead and Principle-Based AnalysisLogic and Argumentation10.1007/978-3-031-40875-5_5(61-83)Online publication date: 10-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-40875-5_5
Baroni PFermé EGiacomin MSimari G(2022)Belief Revision and Computational Argumentation: A Critical ComparisonJournal of Logic, Language and Information10.1007/s10849-022-09369-831:4(555-589)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10849-022-09369-8
Governatori GBench-Capon TVerheij BAraszkiewicz MFrancesconi EGrabmair M(2022)Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: the first decadeArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-022-09329-430:4(481-519)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10506-022-09329-4
Borg AStraßer CArieli O(2021)A Generalized Proof-Theoretic Approach to Logical Argumentation Based on HypersequentsStudia Logica10.1007/s11225-020-09906-1109:1(167-238)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11225-020-09906-1
Heyninck JStraßer CElkind EVeloso MAgmon NTaylor M(2019)A Fully Rational Argumentation System for Preordered Defeasible RulesProceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems10.5555/3306127.3331901(1704-1712)Online publication date: 8-May-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3306127.3331901
Amgoud LBesnard P(2019)A formal characterization of the outcomes of rule-based argumentation systemsKnowledge and Information Systems10.1007/s10115-018-1227-561:1(543-588)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10115-018-1227-5
Arieli OBorg AStraßer CAndre EKoenig SDastani MSukthankar G(2018)Prioritized Sequent-Based ArgumentationProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems10.5555/3237383.3237861(1105-1113)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3237383.3237861
Borg AArieli OAndre EKoenig SDastani MSukthankar G(2018)Hypersequential Argumentation FrameworksProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems10.5555/3237383.3237860(1097-1104)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3237383.3237860
Atkinson KBaroni PGiacomin MHunter APrakken HReed CSimari GThimm MVillata S(2017)Toward Artificial ArgumentationAI Magazine10.1609/aimag.v38i3.270438:3(25-36)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1609/aimag.v38i3.2704
Amgoud LNouioua F(2017)An argumentation system for defeasible reasoningInternational Journal of Approximate Reasoning10.1016/j.ijar.2017.02.00985:C(1-20)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijar.2017.02.009
Show More Cited By

Abstract

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Formal Definitions of Reason Fallacies to Aid Defect Exploration in Argument Gaming

Social obligation as reason for action

Give me a reason: hedonic product choice and justification

Reviews

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Comments

Information

Published In

Publisher

Publication History

Qualifiers

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View options

Figures

Other

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media

Affiliations