Related papers: On Strong and Weak Admissibility in Non-Flat Assum…
Argumentation frameworks, consisting of arguments and an attack relation representing conflicts, are fundamental for formally studying reasoning under conflicting information. We use methods from mathematical logic, specifically…
Causal inference is only valid when its underlying assumptions are satisfied, one of the most central being the ignorability or unconfoundedness assumption. However, this hypothesis is often unrealistic in observational studies, as some…
A gradual semantics takes a weighted argumentation framework as input and outputs a final acceptability degree for each argument, with different semantics performing the computation in different manners. In this work, we consider the…
Defeasible logics provide several linguistic features to support the expression of defeasible knowledge. There is also a wide variety of such logics, expressing different intuitions about defeasible reasoning. However, the logics can only…
In this paper, we discuss necessary and sufficient explanations for formal argumentation - the question whether and why a certain argument can be accepted (or not) under various extension-based semantics. Given a framework with which…
We consider the notion of a vacuous reduct semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks, which, given two abstract argumentation semantics {\sigma} and {\tau}, refines {\sigma} (base condition) by accepting only those {\sigma}-extensions…
This paper contributes to the area of inductive logic programming by presenting a new learning framework that allows the learning of weak constraints in Answer Set Programming (ASP). The framework, called Learning from Ordered Answer Sets,…
Some abstract argumentation approaches consider that arguments have a degree of uncertainty, which impacts on the degree of uncertainty of the extensions obtained from a abstract argumentation framework (AAF) under a semantics. In these…
Argumentation theory is a powerful paradigm that formalizes a type of commonsense reasoning that aims to simulate the human ability to resolve a specific problem in an intelligent manner. A classical argumentation process takes into account…
This paper develops a natural-language agent-based model of argumentation (ABMA). Its artificial deliberative agents (ADAs) are constructed with the help of so-called neural language models recently developed in AI and computational…
Conditional acceptability refers to how plausible a conditional statement is perceived to be. It plays an important role in communication and reasoning, as it influences how individuals interpret implications, assess arguments, and make…
We develop a framework for modelling and reasoning with uncertainty based on accept and reject statements about gambles. It generalises the frameworks found in the literature based on statements of acceptability, desirability, or…
Nonmonotonic logics are usually characterized by the presence of some notion of 'conditional' that fails monotonicity. Research on nonmonotonic logics is therefore largely concerned with the defeasibility of argument forms and the…
Sensitivity analyses reveal the influence of various modeling choices on the outcomes of statistical analyses. While theoretically appealing, they are overwhelmingly inefficient for complex Bayesian models. In this work, we propose…
We look at non-classical negations and their corresponding adjustment connectives from a modal viewpoint, over complete distributive lattices, and apply a very general mechanism in order to offer adequate analytic proof systems to logics…
In this paper, we study the effect of preferences in abstract argumentation under a claim-centric perspective. Recent work has revealed that semantical and computational properties can change when reasoning is performed on claim-level…
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…
This paper deals with the problem of finding the preferred extensions of an argumentation framework by means of a bijection with the naive sets of another framework. First, we consider the case where an argumentation framework is…
The notion of stability in a structured argumentation setup characterizes situations where the acceptance status associated with a given literal will not be impacted by any future evolution of this setup. In this paper, we abstract away…
In his seminal paper, Phan Minh Dung (1995) proposed abstract argumentation framework, which models argumentation using directed graphs where structureless arguments are the nodes and attacks among the arguments are the edges. In the…