A review of current defeasible reasoning implementations

  • Authors:

  • Daniel Bryant;Paul Krause

  • Affiliations:

  • Department of computing, university of surrey, guildford, surrey, uk/ e-mail: d.bryant@surrey.ac.uk, p.krause@surrey.ac.uk;Department of computing, university of surrey, guildford, surrey, uk/ e-mail: d.bryant@surrey.ac.uk, p.krause@surrey.ac.uk

  • Venue:
  • The Knowledge Engineering Review
  • Year:
  • 2008

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

This article surveys existing practical implementations of both defeasible and argumentation-based reasoning engines and associated literature. We aim to summarize the current state of the art in the research area, show that there are many similiarities and connections between the various implementations and also highlight the differences regarding evaluation goals and strategies. An important goal of this paper is to argue for the need for well-designed empirical evaluations, as well as formal complexity analysis, in order to justify the practical applicability of a reasoning engine. There are indeed many challenges to be faced in developing implementations of argumentation. Not least of these is the inherent computational complexity of the formal models. We cover some of the ways these challenges have been addressed, and provide pointers for future directions in realizing the goal of practical argumentation.