Tailoring inference-rich descriptions through making compromises between conflicting cooperation principles

Deductive reasoning is an area related to argumentation where machine-based techniques, notably theorem proving, can contribute substantially to the formation of arguments. However, making use of the functionality of theorem provers for this issue is associated with a number of difficulties and, as we will demonstrate, requires considerable effort for obtaining reasonable results. Aiming at the exploitation of machine-oriented reasoning for human-adequate argumentation in a broader sense, we present our model for producing proof presentations from machine-oriented inference structures. Capabilities of the model include adaptation to human-adequate degrees of granularity and explicitness in the underlying argumentation and interactive exploration of proofs. Enhancing capabilities in all these respects, even just those we have addressed so far, does not only improve the interactive use of theorem provers, but shows they are essential ingredients to support the functionality of dialog-oriented tutorial systems in formal domains.

show abstract

“…In Ref. 21, we have defined and motivated some strategies for that; examples will be given in the next section.…”

Section: Interactive Explorationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentation within deductive reasoning

Fiedler

Horacek

2006

Int. J. Intell. Syst.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The choice among these options is based on assumptions about the audience and on the resulting balance of textual descriptions. In [10] we have defined and motivated some strategies for that.…”

Section: Omitting Intermediate Inference Stepsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentation in Explanations to Logical Problems

Fiedler

Horacek

2001

Computational Science — ICCS 2001

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Explaining solutions to logical problems is one of the areas where argumentation in natural language plays a prominent role. One crucial reason for the difficulty in pursuing this issue in a systematic manner when relying on formal inference systems lies in the discrepancy between machine-oriented reasoning and human-adequate argumentation. Aiming at bridging these two divergent views, we present a model for producing human-adequate argumentation from machine-oriented inference structures. Ingredients of our method are techniques to build representations to suitable degrees of abstraction and explicitness, and a module for their interactive and adaptive exploration. The presented techniques are not only relevant for the interactive use of theorem provers, but they also have the potential to support the functionality of dialog-oriented tutorial systems.

show abstract

Presenting Mathematical Concepts as an Example for Inference-Rich Domains

Horacek

2001

Natural Language Processing and Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tailoring inference-rich descriptions through making compromises between conflicting cooperation principles

Cited by 3 publications

References 23 publications

Argumentation within deductive reasoning

Argumentation within deductive reasoning

Argumentation in Explanations to Logical Problems

Presenting Mathematical Concepts as an Example for Inference-Rich Domains

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About