jacques riche - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by jacques riche

This dissertation is a contribution to computational logic and automated reasornng rn Relevant Lo... more This dissertation is a contribution to computational logic and automated reasornng rn Relevant Logics. The first three chapters are theoretical and investigate the decision problem of several systems of these logics in an algebraic perspective. It is shown that the termination condition of the decidability procedure is equivalent to some known results in the theory of ordered sets and in the theory of commutative rings. The complexity of these logics and of their decision procedure is then investigated and some new results are obtained. These results also hold in various other fields of computational logic where the same termination condition is used. This is particularly the case in Logic Programming which is discussed in Chapter three, making the transition with the rest of the thesis devoted to an application of these investigation in Automated Theorem Proving. The relations between Automated Theorem Proving and Logic Programming are discussed, and the decision procedure is implemented in a Prolog theorem prover for the system LR of Relevant Logics. The main issues discussed concern the computational feasibility with respect to the complexity of the logics and the current inefficiencies of Logic Programming. It is shown that, to some extent, the resources of parallel and massive parallel processing can help in overcoming some of these inefficiencies and part of the complexity of the logics. Even in the present stage of technological development, these computational resources cannot supplant the need for deeper insight into the logic and further discovery of heuristic procedures. But they are required to find and execute these procedures efficiently.

PIRIKA (an acronym for PIlot for the RIght Knowledge and Argument) is an argument-based communica... more PIRIKA (an acronym for PIlot for the RIght Knowledge and Argument) is an argument-based communication tool for humans and agents, which supplements and alternates the current communication systems such as Twitter, Line, etc. It allows for asynchronous argumentation for anyone, anytime, anywhere on any issues, as well as synchronous argumentation and stand-alone argumentation. In addition to the Dungean semantics, it also incorporates a recently devised argumentation semantics: the balanced semantics for argumentation based on Heider’s socio-psychological balance theory.

Argumentation, whether philosophical or formal and mathematical, is a discipline of interdiscipli... more Argumentation, whether philosophical or formal and mathematical, is a discipline of interdisciplinary nature, per se. The recent works on the computational argumentation formalism and their foundations, however, have rested only on logic or logical account. In this paper, we reconsider Dung’s seminal argument acceptability notion in the context of Heider’s socio-psychological balance theory, where there can be 4 balanced (stable) interaction rules of the form of a triad: (1) the friend of my friend is my friend, (2) the friend of my enemy is my enemy, (3) the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and (4) the enemy of my friend is my enemy. The third one may be a counterpart of Dung’s argument acceptability. We propose an innovative argumentation semantics named balanced semantics, taking into account all of the four balanced triads. It naturally leads to an argumentation framework with both attack and support incorporated from the start.

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2013

Argumentation is a dialectical process of knowing things (inquiry) and justifying them (advocacy)... more Argumentation is a dialectical process of knowing things (inquiry) and justifying them (advocacy) in general. Computational argumentation has been recognized as a social computing mechanism or paradigm in the multi-agent systems community. We have developed a computational argumentation framework that basically consists of EALP (Extended Annotated Logic Programming) and LMA (Logic of Multiple-valued Argumentation) constructed on top of EALP. In this paper, we describe some non-standard uses of the implemented argumentation system: PIRIKA (Pilot of the Right Knowledge and Argument) based on EALP and LMA, which is now opened to the public as open source software, and show that those uses can extend further the usefulness and usability of PIRIKA together with the standard use of PIRIKA. PIRIKA allows to us to put forward indefinite agendas (partially unspecified ones) with variables, to represent formal literals as semi-natural language sentences, and to use semi-lattice for annotations of truth-values particularly for the Eastern argumentation.

This dissertation is a contribution to computational logic and automated reasornng rn Relevant Lo... more This dissertation is a contribution to computational logic and automated reasornng rn Relevant Logics. The first three chapters are theoretical and investigate the decision problem of several systems of these logics in an algebraic perspective. It is shown that the termination condition of the decidability procedure is equivalent to some known results in the theory of ordered sets and in the theory of commutative rings. The complexity of these logics and of their decision procedure is then investigated and some new results are obtained. These results also hold in various other fields of computational logic where the same termination condition is used. This is particularly the case in Logic Programming which is discussed in Chapter three, making the transition with the rest of the thesis devoted to an application of these investigation in Automated Theorem Proving. The relations between Automated Theorem Proving and Logic Programming are discussed, and the decision procedure is implemented in a Prolog theorem prover for the system LR of Relevant Logics. The main issues discussed concern the computational feasibility with respect to the complexity of the logics and the current inefficiencies of Logic Programming. It is shown that, to some extent, the resources of parallel and massive parallel processing can help in overcoming some of these inefficiencies and part of the complexity of the logics. Even in the present stage of technological development, these computational resources cannot supplant the need for deeper insight into the logic and further discovery of heuristic procedures. But they are required to find and execute these procedures efficiently.

PIRIKA (an acronym for PIlot for the RIght Knowledge and Argument) is an argument-based communica... more PIRIKA (an acronym for PIlot for the RIght Knowledge and Argument) is an argument-based communication tool for humans and agents, which supplements and alternates the current communication systems such as Twitter, Line, etc. It allows for asynchronous argumentation for anyone, anytime, anywhere on any issues, as well as synchronous argumentation and stand-alone argumentation. In addition to the Dungean semantics, it also incorporates a recently devised argumentation semantics: the balanced semantics for argumentation based on Heider’s socio-psychological balance theory.

Argumentation, whether philosophical or formal and mathematical, is a discipline of interdiscipli... more Argumentation, whether philosophical or formal and mathematical, is a discipline of interdisciplinary nature, per se. The recent works on the computational argumentation formalism and their foundations, however, have rested only on logic or logical account. In this paper, we reconsider Dung’s seminal argument acceptability notion in the context of Heider’s socio-psychological balance theory, where there can be 4 balanced (stable) interaction rules of the form of a triad: (1) the friend of my friend is my friend, (2) the friend of my enemy is my enemy, (3) the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and (4) the enemy of my friend is my enemy. The third one may be a counterpart of Dung’s argument acceptability. We propose an innovative argumentation semantics named balanced semantics, taking into account all of the four balanced triads. It naturally leads to an argumentation framework with both attack and support incorporated from the start.

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2013

Argumentation is a dialectical process of knowing things (inquiry) and justifying them (advocacy)... more Argumentation is a dialectical process of knowing things (inquiry) and justifying them (advocacy) in general. Computational argumentation has been recognized as a social computing mechanism or paradigm in the multi-agent systems community. We have developed a computational argumentation framework that basically consists of EALP (Extended Annotated Logic Programming) and LMA (Logic of Multiple-valued Argumentation) constructed on top of EALP. In this paper, we describe some non-standard uses of the implemented argumentation system: PIRIKA (Pilot of the Right Knowledge and Argument) based on EALP and LMA, which is now opened to the public as open source software, and show that those uses can extend further the usefulness and usability of PIRIKA together with the standard use of PIRIKA. PIRIKA allows to us to put forward indefinite agendas (partially unspecified ones) with variables, to represent formal literals as semi-natural language sentences, and to use semi-lattice for annotations of truth-values particularly for the Eastern argumentation.