一种新的辩论推理模式及其应用

文中定义了一个新的辩论推理模式，建立了一个形式化的知识表示框架，并把它应用于研究扩展逻辑程序类的说明语义，结果表明，新语义克服了择优语义的不足。作者还根据上述研究结果实现了逻辑程序设计风格下的知识框架。

A New Argumentation Framework and Its Application

In the available argumentation theories, an argument is reasonable if it can defeat all attacking arguments. From such a definition, some programs show that some consistent arguments are unacceptable because of their limited defeat power and the attacks from inconsistent arguments. This shows that the definition of a reasonable argument is not completely intuitionistic. So we define a new knowledge framework for argumentation reasoning where hypotheses (namely arguments) are further classified into untenable ones and cogent ones on the basis of consistent hypotheses and inconsistent ones. We demonstrate that in our framework consistent hypotheses become more powerful than ever because the attacks from inconsistent hypotheses are well limited. In order to show that our framework is reasonable, we apply it in studying the declarative semantics of extended logic programs. Indeed some programs show that, the semantics under our framework overcome the limitation of Dung's preferred extension semantics in a natural way, they can fetch the intended meaning of these programs. Further, we present a sound scheme to prove whether a hypothesis is cogent, also a limited knowledge framework with a logic programming style is implemented.