Integrating defeasible argumentation with fuzzy ART neural networks for pattern classification


  • Sergio Alejandro Gómez Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahía Blanca, Argentina
  • Carlos Iván Chesñevar Department of Informatics and Industrial Engineering, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain


Machine Learning, Defeasible Argumentation, Neural networks, Pattern Classification


Many classification systems rely on clustering techniques in which a collection of training examples is provided as an input, and a number of clusters c1, modelling some concept C results as an output, such that every cluster ci is labelled as positive or negative. Given a new, unlabelled instance enew, the above classification is used to determine to which particular cluster ci this new instance belongs. In such a setting clusters can overlap, and a new unlabelled instance can be assigned to more than one cluster with conflicting labels. In the literature, such a case is usually solved non-deterministically by making a random choice. This paper presents a novel, hybrid approach to solve this situation by combining a neural network for classification along with a defeasible argumentation framework which models preference criteria for performing clustering.


Download data is not yet available.


[1] D. Carbogim, D. Robertson, and J. Lee. Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering. Knowledge Engineering Review, 15(2):119–149, 2000.
[2] G. Carpenter, S. Grossberg, and D. Rosen. Fuzzy art: Fast stable learning and categorization of analog patterns by an adaptive resonance system. Neural Networks, 4:759–771, 1991.
[3] C. I. Chesnevar, J. Dix, F. Stolzenburg, and G. R. Simari. Relating Defeasible and Normal Logic Programming through Transformation Properties. Theoretical Computer Science, 290(1):499–529, 2003.
[4] C. I. Chesnevar, A. Maguitman, and R. Loui. Logical Models of Argument. ACM Computing Surveys, 32(4):337–383, Dec. 2000.
[5] C. I. Chesnevar, G. R. Simari, and A. García. Pruning Search Space in Defeasible Argumentation. In Procs. of Workshop on Advances & Trends in AI, pages 46–55. XX Intl. Conf. of the SCCC, Chile, Nov. 2000.
[6] I. Davidson. Visualizing Clustering Results. In Proc. of 2nd SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, Arlington VA, USA. SIAM, 2002.
[7] A. J. García and G. R. Simari. Defeasible Logic Programming: An Argumentative Approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 4(1):95–138, 2004.
[8] S. A. Gómez and C. I. Chesnevar. Integrating Defeasible Argumentation and Machine Learning Techniques: A Preliminary Report. In Procs. V Workshop of Researchers in Comp. Science, pages 320–324, 2003.
[9] S. A. Gómez and L. Lanzarini. Querando!: Un agente de filtrado de documentos web. Procs. of the VII Argentinean Conf. in Computer Science (CACIC), pages 1205–1217, 2001. 1 E.g.∼mlearn/MLRepository.html
[10] T. Honkela. Self-organizing maps in Natural Language Processing. PhD thesis, Helsinky Univ., 1997.
[11] A. Hunter. Hybrid argumentation systems for structured news reports. Knowledge Engineering Review, (16):295–329, 2001.
[12] K. Inoue and Y. Kudoh. Learning Extended Logic Programs. In Proc. of the 15th IJCAI (vol.1), pages 176–181. Morgan Kaufmann, 1997.
[13] B. Johnston and G. Governatori. An algorithm for the induction of defeasible logic theories from databases. In Proc. of the 14th Australasian Database Conference (ADC2003), pages 75–83, 2003.
[14] Y. Lashkari, M. Metral, and P. Maes. Collaborative interface agents. In Readings in Agents, pages 111–116. Morgan Kaufmann, 1997.
[15] P. Lavoie, J. Crespo, and Y. Savaria. Generalization, discrimination, and multiple categorization using adaptive resonance theory. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 10(4):757–767, July 1999.
[16] J. Lubkin and G. Cauwenberghs. VLSI Implementation of Fuzzy Adaptive Resonance and Learning Vector Quantization. Analog Integrated Circuits and Signal Processing, 23:1–10, 2001.
[17] H. Prakken and G. Sartor. The role of logic in computational models of legal argument - a critical survey. In A. Kakas and F. Sadri, editors, Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond, pages 342–380. Springer, 2002.
[18] H. Prakken and G. Vreeswijk. Logical Systems for Defeasible Argumentation. In D. Gabbay and F.Guenther, editors, Handbook of Phil. Logic, pages 219–318. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.
[19] V. Rao and H. Rao. C++ Neural Networks and Fuzzy Logic, Second Edition. MIS Press, 1995.
[20] E. Rasmussen. Clustering algorithms. In W. Frakes and R. Baeza-Yates, editors, Information Retrieval, pages 419–442. Prentice Hall, 1992.
[21] J. Shavlik and G. Towell. An approach to combining explanation-based and neural learning algorithms. Connection Science, 1(3):233–255, 1989.
[22] G. R. Simari and R. P. Loui. A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 53:125–157, 1992.
[23] F. Stolzenburg, A. García, C. I. Chesnevar, and G. R.Simari. Computing Generalized Specificity. Journal of Non-Classical Logics, 13(1):87–113, 2003.
[24] B. Verheij. Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 150:291–324, 2003.
[25] P. D. Wasserman. Neural Computing. Theory and Practice. Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989.




How to Cite

Gómez, S. A., & Chesñevar, C. I. (2004). Integrating defeasible argumentation with fuzzy ART neural networks for pattern classification. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 4(01), p. 45–51. Retrieved from



Original Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)