Related papers: Reasoning by Cases in Structured Argumentation
In ASPIC-style structured argumentation an argument can rebut another argument by attacking its conclusion. Two ways of formalizing rebuttal have been proposed: In restricted rebuttal, the attacked conclusion must have been arrived at with…
In many expert and everyday reasoning contexts it is very useful to reason on the basis of defeasible assumptions. For instance, if the information at hand is incomplete we often use plausible assumptions, or if the information is…
ASPIC-style structured argumentation frameworks provide a formal basis for reasoning in artificial intelligence by combining internal argument structure with abstract argumentation semantics. A key challenge in these frameworks is ensuring…
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…
Humans currently use arguments for explaining choices which are already made, or for evaluating potential choices. Each potential choice has usually pros and cons of various strengths. In spite of the usefulness of arguments in a decision…
Rule-based reasoning, a fundamental type of legal reasoning, enables us to draw conclusions by accurately applying a rule to a set of facts. We explore causal language models as rule-based reasoners, specifically with respect to…
This paper continues an established line of research about the relations between argumentation theory, particularly assumption-based argumentation, and different kinds of logic programs. In particular, we extend known result of Caminada,…
This paper builds on the recent ASPIC+ formalism, to develop a general framework for argumentation with preferences. We motivate a revised definition of conflict free sets of arguments, adapt ASPIC+ to accommodate a broader range of…
Various structured argumentation frameworks utilize preferences as part of their standard inference procedure to enable reasoning with preferences. In this paper, we consider an inverse of the standard reasoning problem, seeking to identify…
Many systems of structured argumentation explicitly require that the facts and rules that make up the argument for a conclusion be the minimal set required to derive the conclusion. ASPIC+ does not place such a requirement on arguments,…
Inferring from inconsistency and making decisions are two problems which have always been treated separately by researchers in Artificial Intelligence. Consequently, different models have been proposed for each category. Different…
In this paper, we provide more evidence for the contention that logical consequence should be understood in normative terms. Hartry Field and John MacFarlane covered the classical case. We extend their work, examining what it means for an…
In this paper we make a contribution to the unification of formal models of defeasible reasoning. We present several translations between formal argumentation frameworks and nonmonotonic logics for reasoning with plausible assumptions. More…
In this paper, we study an extension of the stable model semantics for disjunctive logic programs where each true atom in a model is associated with an algebraic expression (in terms of rule labels) that represents its justifications. As in…
Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning where some generalisations may not be valid in all circumstances, that is general conclusions may fail in some cases. Various formalisms have been developed to model this kind of reasoning, which…
W.C. Rounds and G.-Q. Zhang (2001) have proposed to study a form of disjunctive logic programming generalized to algebraic domains. This system allows reasoning with information which is hierarchically structured and forms a (suitable)…
Defeasible logic is a rule-based nonmonotonic logic, with both strict and defeasible rules, and a priority relation on rules. We show that inference in the propositional form of the logic can be performed in linear time. This contrasts…
Argument systems are based on the idea that one can construct arguments for propositions; i.e., structured reasons justifying the belief in a proposition. Using defeasible rules, arguments need not be valid in all circumstances, therefore,…
In this paper we investigate the links between instantiated argumentation systems and the axioms for non-monotonic reasoning described in [9] with the aim of characterising the nature of argument based reasoning. In doing so, we consider…
Defeasible conditionals are a form of non-monotonic inference which enable the expression of statements like "if $\phi$ then normally $\psi$". The KLM framework defines a semantics for the propositional case of defeasible conditionals by…