结构化论辩系统——限制性反驳和非限制性反驳（英文）

Structured Argumentation:Restricted Rebut vs. Unrestricted Rebut

近年来,形式论辩研究在人工智能领域受到越来越多的关注。形式论辩研究的目标之一是沟通人类推理和机器推理,为实现这一目的,近年来多个结构化论辩系统被提出,如ABA、ASPIC^+、ASPIC^-等。不同的研究在系统设定上有不同的选择,本文关注的是对论证间反驳关系定义的两种不同选择:限制性反驳和非限制性反驳。为了验证哪种选择更符合人类推理直觉,本文给出了一个实证研究,研究结果显示非限制性反驳更符合人类直觉。由于非限制性反驳可能导致论辩系统推理结果违反理性公设,这一结论说明目前的结构化论辩形式体系在自然性和合理性的兼顾上还需改进。

In recent years,formal argumentation has been an increasingly active research topic in the field of logic and artificial intelligence.One of its aims is to bridge the gap between human reasoning and computer-based reasoning.For this purpose,several argumentation formalisms have recently been proposed,including ABA,ASPIC+,ASPIC-,etc.Different design choices are implemented in different systems.This paper focuses on two opposite design choices,namely restricted rebut versus unrestricted rebut,and carries out an empirical research.The empirical results show that unrestricted rebut is more likely to be accepted by human users.It suggests that the current formalisms should be improved and that a better way to combine naturalness and rationality is needed.