Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

A review of current defeasible reasoning implementations


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.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

J. J. Alferes & L. M. Pereira 1996 Reasoning with Logic Programming. New York: Springer-Verlag.

G. Antoniou & A. Bikakis 2007 Dr-prolog: A system for defeasible reasoning with rules and ontologies on the semantic web. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 19(2), 233245.

G. Antoniou , D. Billington , G. Governatori & M. J. Maher 2001 Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(2), 255287.

T. J. M. Bench-Capon 2003 Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic Computation 13(3), 429448.

D. Billington & A. Rock 2001 Propositional plausible logic: Introduction and implementation. Studia Logica 67(2), 243269.

A. Bondarenko , P. M. Dung , R. Kowalski & F. Toni 1997 An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93(1–2), 63101.

D. Bryant & P. J. Krause 2006 An implementation of a lightweight argumentation engine for agent applications. In Proceedings of 10th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA06), vol. 4160 of LNAI.Springer, pp. 469–472.

M. Capobianco , C. I. Chesnevar & G. R. Simari 2005 Argumentation and the dynamics of warranted beliefs in changing environments. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11(2), 127151.

R. L. Causey 1994 Evid: A system for interactive defeasible reasoning. Decision Support Sytems 11(2), 103131.

R. L. Causey 2003 Computational dialogic defeasible reasoning. Argumentation 17(4), 421450.

C. Cayrol , S. Doutre & J. Mengin 2003 On decision problems related to the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic Computation 13(3), 377403.

C. I. Chesnevar , A. G. Maguitman & R. P. Loui 2000a Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys, 32(4), 337383.

P. Cholewinski , V. W. Marek , A. Mikitiuk & M. Truszczyński 1999 Computing with default logic. Artificial Intelligence 112(1–2), 105146.

M. A. Covington 2000 Logical control of an elavator with defeasible logic. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 45(7), 13471349.

E. Denti , A. Omicini & A. Ricci 2005 Multi-paradigm java-prolog integration in tuProlog. Science of Computer Programming. 57(2), 217250.

Y. Dimopoulos , B. Nebel & F. Toni 2002 On the computational complexity of assumption-based argumentation for default reasoning. Artificial Intellegence 141(1), 5778.

Y. Dimopoulos & A. Torres 1996 Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theoretical Computer Science. 170(1–2), 209244.

W. F. Dowling & J. H. Gallier 1984 Linear-time algorithms for testing the satisfiability of propositional horn formulae. Journal of Logic Programming 1, 267284.

P. M. Dung 1995 On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321358.

P. M. Dung , R. A. Kowalski & F. Toni 2006 Dialectic proof procedures for assumption based admissible argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 170(2), 114159.

P. E. Dunne & T. J. M. Bench-Capon 2002 Coherence infinite argument systems. Artificial Intelligence 141(1), 187203.

A. J. Garcia & G. R. Simari 2004 Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(2), 95138.

A. J. García , N. D. Rotstein & G. R. Simari 2007 Dialectical Explanations in Defeasible Argumentation. In Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU-07). Springer LNCS, pp. 295–307.

M. Gelfond & V. Lifschitz 1991 Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9(3/4), 365386.

R. Haenni 2001 Cost-bounded argumentation. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 26, 101127(27).

R. Kowalski 1979 Algorithm = logic + control. Communications of the ACM 22, 424436.

R. P. Loui , J. Norman , J. Olson & A. Merrill 1993 A design for reasoning with policies, precedents, and rationales. In ICAIL '93: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 202–211.

J. Loyd 1984 Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer-Verlag.

M. J. Maher , A. Rock , G. Antoniou , D. Billington & T. Miller 2001b Efficient defeasible reasoning systems. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 10(4), 483501.

D. Nute 1988 Defeasible reasoning and decision support systems. Decision Support Systems 4(1), 97110.

D. Nute , R. I. Mann & B. F. Brewer 1990 Controlling expert system recommendations with defeasible logic. Decision Support Systems 6(2), 153164.

J. L. Pollock 1992 How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence 57(1), 142.

G. Simari & R. Loui 1982 Mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53(2–3), 125157.

A. Van Gelder , K. A. Ross & J. S. Schlipf 1991 The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. Journal of the ACM 38(3), 620650.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The Knowledge Engineering Review
  • ISSN: 0269-8889
  • EISSN: 1469-8005
  • URL: /core/journals/knowledge-engineering-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 9 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 38 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 28th May 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.