Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Logic programming with defaults and argumentation theories

  • Hui Wan
  • , Benjamin Grosof
  • , Michael Kifer
  • , Paul Fodor
  • , Senlin Liang
  • Stony Brook University
  • Vulcan Inc.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionpeer-review

32 Scopus citations

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.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationLogic Programming - 25th International Conference, ICLP 2009, Proceedings
Pages432-448
Number of pages17
DOIs
StatePublished - 2009
Event25th International Conference on Logic Programming, ICLP 2009 - Pasadena, CA, United States
Duration: Jul 14 2009Jul 17 2009

Publication series

NameLecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)
Volume5649 LNCS
ISSN (Print)0302-9743
ISSN (Electronic)1611-3349

Conference

Conference25th International Conference on Logic Programming, ICLP 2009
Country/TerritoryUnited States
CityPasadena, CA
Period07/14/0907/17/09

Keywords

  • Argumentation theory
  • Defeasible reasoning
  • Well-founded models

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Logic programming with defaults and argumentation theories'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this