Related papers: A Parameterised Hierarchy of Argumentation Semanti…
This paper presents and discusses several methods for reasoning from inconsistent knowledge bases. A so-called argumentative-consequence relation taking into account the existence of consistent arguments in favor of a conclusion and the…
Argumentation is a central subarea of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for modeling and reasoning about arguments. The semantics of abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) is given by sets of arguments (extensions) and conditions on the…
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…
There is a generic way to add any new feature to a system. It involves 1) identifying the basic units which build up the system and 2) introducing the new feature to each of these basic units. In the case where the system is argumentation…
Argumentation problems are concerned with determining the acceptability of a set of arguments from their relational structure. When the available information is uncertain, probabilistic argumentation frameworks provide modelling tools to…
Assumption-based argumentation (ABA) is a central structured argumentation formalism. As shown recently, answer set programming (ASP) enables efficiently solving NP-hard reasoning tasks of ABA in practice, in particular in the commonly…
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…
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…
Rhetorical Structure Theory implies no single discourse interpretation of a text, and the limitations of RST parsers further exacerbate inconsistent parsing of similar structures. Therefore, it is important to take into account that the…
To adequately model mathematical arguments the analyst must be able to represent the mathematical objects under discussion and the relationships between them, as well as inferences drawn about these objects and relationships as the…
Two distinct research approaches have been proposed for assigning a purely extensional semantics to higher-order logic programming. The former approach uses classical domain theoretic tools while the latter builds on a fixed-point…
Abstract argumentation framework (\AFname) is a unifying framework able to encompass a variety of nonmonotonic reasoning approaches, logic programming and computational argumentation. Yet, efficient approaches for most of the decision and…
Justification theory is a unifying semantic framework. While it has its roots in non-monotonic logics, it can be applied to various areas in computer science, especially in explainable reasoning; its most central concept is a justification:…
Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance in analyzing and generating text, yet they struggle with explicit, transparent, and verifiable reasoning over complex texts such as those containing debates. In particular, they lack…
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…
Much like admissibility is the key concept underlying preferred semantics, strong admissibility is the key concept underlying grounded semantics, as membership of a strongly admissible set is sufficient to show membership of the grounded…
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…
We are aiming at a semantics of logic programs with preferences defined on rules, which always selects a preferred answer set, if there is a non-empty set of (standard) answer sets of the given program. It is shown in a seminal paper by…
In argumentative discourse, persuasion is often achieved by refuting or attacking others arguments. Attacking is not always straightforward and often comprise complex rhetorical moves such that arguers might agree with a logic of an…
In this work, we show that both logic programming and abstract argumentation frameworks can be interpreted in terms of Nelson's constructive logic N4. We do so by formalizing, in this logic, two principles that we call non-contradictory…