Related papers: Deontic Argumentation
We consider the notion of weak permission as the failure to conclude that the opposite obligation. We investigate the issue from the point of non-monotonic reasoning, specifically logic programming and structured argumentation, and we show…
In this research note, we show the relationship between two non-admissible argumentation framework semantics: cogent and weakly admissible semantics. We prove that, while cogent extensions are weakly admissible, the converse is not true.
In Dung-style abstract argumentation, various semantics capture notions of acceptability of arguments. The admissibility semantics capture the notion that an argument can be consistently defended from any potential counterargument. Weak…
In this paper we propose an extension of Defeasible Logic to represent and compute three concepts of defeasible permission. In particular, we discuss different types of explicit permissive norms that work as exceptions to opposite…
This paper examines the significance of weak permissions in criminal trials (\emph{judicial permission}). It introduces a dialogue game model to systematically address judicial permissions, considering different standards of proof and…
In this paper we introduce a novel family of semantics called weakly complete semantics. Differently from Dung's complete semantics, weakly complete semantics employs a mechanism called undecidedness blocking by which the label undecided of…
In this paper, we explore how, and if, free choice permission (FCP) can be accepted when we consider deontic conflicts between certain types of permissions and obligations. As is well known, FCP can license, under some minimal conditions,…
Deontic logic is shown to be applicable for modelling human reasoning. For this the Wason selection task and the suppression task are discussed in detail. Different versions of modelling norms with deontic logic are introduced and in the…
This paper examines how a notion of stable explanation developed elsewhere in Defeasible Logic can be expressed in the context of formal argumentation. With this done, we discuss the deontic meaning of this reconstruction and show how to…
In this paper we show how the defense relation among abstract arguments can be used to encode the reasons for accepting arguments. After introducing a novel notion of defenses and defense graphs, we propose a defense semantics together with…
We combine linear temporal logic (with both past and future modalities) with a deontic version of justification logic to provide a framework for reasoning about time and epistemic and normative reasons. In addition to temporal modalities,…
We contemplate a higher-level bipolar abstract argumentation for non-elementary arguments such as: X argues against Ys sincerity with the fact that Y has presented his argument to draw a conclusion C, by omitting other facts which would not…
In this paper we propose a general approach to define a many-valued preferential interpretation of gradual argumentation semantics. The approach allows for conditional reasoning over arguments and boolean combination of arguments, with…
Weighted gradual semantics provide an acceptability degree to each argument representing the strength of the argument, computed based on factors including background evidence for the argument, and taking into account interactions between…
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…
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…
In response to a concern raised by Horty, this paper develops a two-tiered, preference-based semantic framework for modeling defeasible conditional obligations. The paper extends a Hansson-Lewis style preference semantics for dyadic deontic…
Different notions of the consistency of obligations collapse in standard deontic logic. In justification logics, which feature explicit reasons for obligations, the situation is different. Their strength depends on a constant specification…
Dung's abstract framework for argumentation enables a study of the interactions between arguments based solely on an ``attack'' binary relation on the set of arguments. Various ways to solve conflicts between contradictory pieces of…
This paper defines an argumentation semantics for extended logic programming and shows its equivalence to the well-founded semantics with explicit negation. We set up a general framework in which we extensively compare this semantics to…