The Database and Artificial Intelligence Group of Institute of Information Systems invites to the following talk:
Abstract argumentation provides a natural starting point for modelling argumentation. In abstract argumentation, a graph is used to represent a constellation of arguments and the conflict between them. Each argument is represented by a node, and the attack of one argument on another is represented by a directed arc. Proposals by Phan Minh Dung and others then give principled ways for determining which arguments are acceptable based on the structure of the graph. However, abstract argumentation assumes the existence of such graphs and does not provide means for generating them. To address this, Henry Prakken and others, have shown how logic can be used to generate arguments and to identify conflict between arguments. However, most proposals for using logic, assume a simple defeasible logic. Yet, elsewhere in artificial intelligence, there is the need to use richer logics such as classical logics, description logics, modal logics, temporal logics, and probabilistic logics. In this talk, we consider a framework for harnessing richer logics in computational models of argument.
I have a BSc (1984) from the University of Bristol, and an MSc (1987) and a PhD (1992) from Imperial College, London which was supervised by Dov Gabbay. I was a research fellow at the IT Research Institute at the Univesity of Brighton from 1987 to 1989, and a research associate in the Department of Computing at Imperial College, London, from 1989 to 1996. Since 1996, I have been in the Department of Computer Science at University College London. Currently, I am Professor of Artificial Intelligence, and head of the Intelligent Systems Research Group, in the UCL Department of Computer Science.
My research interests are in the area of knowledge representation and reasoning which is a branch of artificial intelligence. The focus of my research is in the subject of inconsistent knowledge. More generally, I am interested in the inter-related topics of Computational Models of Argumentation; Knowledge merging and aggregation; and Measuring and analysing inconsistency.
With kind support of the Wolfgang Pauli Institute and the WWTF-Project "New Methods for Analyzing, Comparing, and Solving Argumentation Problems"