. The defeasibility of rules is expressed by means of non-provability claims as additional conditions of the rules. We outline an abstract approach to defeasible reasoning and argumentation which includes many existing formalisms, including default logic, extended logic programming, non-monotonic modal logic and auto

Abstract. In this paper we introduce a logic of abstract argumentation capturing Dung’s theory of abstract argumentation, based on connectives for attack and defend. We extend it to a modal logic of abstract argumentation to generalize Dung’s theory and define variants of it. Moreover, we use

Carneades is a recently proposed formalism for structured argumentation with varying proof standards. An open question is its relation with Dung’s seminal abstract approach to argumentation. this paper the two formalisms are formally related by translating Carneades into ASPIC +, another recently

problems are usually studied using classical propositional logic. However, for our analysis we use an argumentation approach to judgment aggregation problems. Indeed the question of how individual evaluations can be combined into a collective one can also be addressed in abstract argumentation. We

Abstract not found

Abstract argumentation is all about the art of dealing with arguments and directed attacks be-tween arguments. The justification status of sets of arguments is defined via several well estab-lished principles, called semantics. Traditionally attacks are also called conflicts. However, as it turns

In this paper Dung’s abstract argumentation framework (cp. [6]) is extended with explanatory capabilities. Further, we investigate bipolar argumentation systems (cp. [4]), incorporate values (cp. [3]) and generalize the systems with sets of attacking arguments (cp. [13]). Different adaptions

This paper presents an approach to modelling and reasoning about arguments that exploits and combines two of the most popular mechanisms used within computational modelling of argumentation: argumentation schemes and abstract argumentation frameworks. Our proposal combines the desirable properties

Abstract. Agents engage in dialogues having as goals to make some arguments acceptable or unacceptable. To do so they may put forward arguments, adding them to the argumentation framework. Argumentation semantics can relate a change in the framework to the resulting extensions but it is not clear

In this work we explore the inclusion of the notion of multiple argument conflicts, those in which two or more arguments are involved. In formal systems of defeasible argumentation, arguments for and against a proposition are produced and evaluated to verify the acceptability of that proposition.