Encoding deductive argumentation in quantified Boolean formulae.
ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
There are a number of frameworks for modelling argumentation in logic. They incorporate a formal representation of individual arguments and techniques for comparing conflicting arguments. A common assumption for logic-based argumentation is that an argument is a. pair <Phi, alpha > where Phi is minimal subset of the knowledge-base such that Phi is consistent and Phi entails the claim alpha. Different logics provide different definitions for consistency and entailment and hence give us different options for argumentation. Classical propositional logic is an appealing option for argumentation but the computational viability of generating an argument is an issue. To better explore this issue, we use quantified Boolean formulae to characterise an approach to argumentation based on classical logic. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|Title:||Encoding deductive argumentation in quantified Boolean formulae|
|Keywords:||Argument systems, Argumentation, Classical logic, Inconsistency, Quantified Boolean formulae, Conflicting knowledge, LOGIC, COMPLEXITY|
|UCL classification:||UCL > School of BEAMS
UCL > School of BEAMS > Faculty of Engineering Science
Archive Staff Only