Related papers: A Comment on Argumentation
We seek to find normative criteria of adequacy for nonmonotonic logic similar to the criterion of validity for deductive logic. Rather than stipulating that the conclusion of an inference be true in all models in which the premises are…
In many real-life settings, agents must navigate dynamic environments while reasoning under incomplete information and acting on a corpus of unstable, context-dependent, and often conflicting norms. We introduce a general, non-modal,…
Argumentation is a very active research field of Artificial Intelligence concerned with the representation and evaluation of arguments used in dialogues between humans and/or artificial agents. Acceptability semantics of formal…
Default logic encounters some conceptual difficulties in representing common sense reasoning tasks. We argue that we should not try to formulate modular default rules that are presumed to work in all or most circumstances. We need to take…
The lexicographic closure of any given finite set D of normal defaults is defined. A conditional assertion "if a then b" is in this lexicographic closure if, given the defaults D and the fact a, one would conclude b. The lexicographic…
The features of a logically sound approach to a theory of statistical reasoning are discussed. A particular approach that satisfies these criteria is reviewed. This is seen to involve selection of a model, model checking, elicitation of a…
This paper outlines a general formal framework for reasoning systems, intended to support future analysis of inference architectures across domains. We model reasoning systems as structured tuples comprising phenomena, explanation space,…
In this paper we discuss contrastive explanations for formal argumentation - the question why a certain argument (the fact) can be accepted, whilst another argument (the foil) cannot be accepted under various extension-based semantics. The…
Given the large variety of existing logical formalisms it is of utmost importance to select the most adequate one for a specific purpose, e.g. for representing the knowledge relevant for a particular application or for using the formalism…
Abstract argumentation offers an appealing way of representing and evaluating arguments and counterarguments. This approach can be enhanced by a probability assignment to each argument. There are various interpretations that can be ascribed…
In the context of abstract argumentation, we present the benefits of considering temporality, i.e. the order in which arguments are enunciated, as well as causality. We propose a formal method to rewrite the concepts of acyclic abstract…
We extend the $ASPIC^+$ framework for structured argumentation so as to allow applications of the reasoning by cases inference scheme for defeasible arguments. Given an argument with conclusion `$A$ or $B$', an argument based on $A$ with…
The paper develops a formal theory of the degree of justification of arguments, which relies solely on the structure of an argumentation framework, and which can be successfully interfaced with approaches to instantiated argumentation. The…
The multiple extension problem arises frequently in diagnostic and default inference. That is, we can often use any of a number of sets of defaults or possible hypotheses to explain observations or make Predictions. In default inference,…
This paper maps out the relation between different approaches for handling preferences in argumentation with strict rules and defeasible assumptions by offering translations between them. The systems we compare are: non-prioritized defeats…
An extension of an abstract argumentation framework, called collective argumentation, is introduced in which the attack relation is defined directly among sets of arguments. The extension turns out to be suitable, in particular, for…
An abstract argumentation framework is a commonly used formalism to provide a static representation of a dialogue. However, the order of enunciation of the arguments in an argumentative dialogue is very important and can affect the outcome…
Ontology is a popular method for knowledge representation in different domains, including the legal domain, and description logics (DL) is commonly used as its description language. To handle reasoning based on inconsistent DL-based legal…
Argumentation is a non-monotonic process. This reflects the fact that argumentation involves uncertain information, and so new information can cause a change in the conclusions drawn. However, the base logic does not need to be…
This paper introduces the notion of value-based argumentation frameworks, an extension of the standard argumentation frameworks proposed by Dung, which are able toshow how rational decision is possible in cases where arguments derive their…