Encoding deductive argumentation in quantified Boolean formulae

  • Authors:
  • Philippe Besnard;Anthony Hunter;Stefan Woltran

  • Affiliations:
  • IRIT-CNRS, Universitè Paul Sabatier, 118 rte de Narbonne, 31062 Toulouse, France;Department of Computer Science, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK;Institute for Information Systems 184/2, Technische Universität Wien, Favoritenstrasse 9-11, 1040 Vienna, Austria

  • Venue:
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Year:
  • 2009

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

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 where @F is minimal subset of the knowledge-base such that @F is consistent and @F entails the claim @a. 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.