Results 1  10
of
95
Logical Models of Argument
 ACM COMPUTING SURVEYS
, 2000
"... Logical models of argument formalize commonsense reasoning while taking process and computation seriously. This survey discusses the main ideas which characterize different logical models of argument. It presents the formal features of a few main approaches to the modeling of argumentation. We trace ..."
Abstract

Cited by 141 (32 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Logical models of argument formalize commonsense reasoning while taking process and computation seriously. This survey discusses the main ideas which characterize different logical models of argument. It presents the formal features of a few main approaches to the modeling of argumentation. We trace the
Defeasible Logic Programming: An Argumentative Approach. Theory and Practice
 of Logic Programming
, 2004
"... The work reported here introduces Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP), a formalism that combines results of Logic Programming and Defeasible Argumentation. DeLP provides the possibility of representing information in the form of weak rules in a declarative manner, and a defeasible argumentation infe ..."
Abstract

Cited by 138 (36 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The work reported here introduces Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP), a formalism that combines results of Logic Programming and Defeasible Argumentation. DeLP provides the possibility of representing information in the form of weak rules in a declarative manner, and a defeasible argumentation inference mechanism for warranting the entailed conclusions. In DeLP an argumentation formalism will be used for deciding between contradictory goals. Queries will be supported by arguments that could be defeated by other arguments. A query q will succeed when there is an argument A for q that is warranted, i. e. the argument A that supports q is found undefeated by a warrant procedure that implements a dialectical analysis. The defeasible argumentation basis of DeLP allows to build applications that deal with incomplete and contradictory information in dynamic domains. Thus, the resulting approach is suitable for representing agent’s knowledge and for providing an argumentation based reasoning mechanism to agents. 1
Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation
 JOURNAL OF LOGIC AND COMPUTATION
, 2005
"... This article carries out a formal study of dialogue games for argumentation. A formal framework for such games is proposed which imposes an explicit reply structure on dialogues, where each dialogue move either attacks or surrenders to some earlier move of the other participant. The framework is fle ..."
Abstract

Cited by 62 (16 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This article carries out a formal study of dialogue games for argumentation. A formal framework for such games is proposed which imposes an explicit reply structure on dialogues, where each dialogue move either attacks or surrenders to some earlier move of the other participant. The framework is flexible in several respects. It allows for different underlying logics, alternative sets of locutions and more or less strict rules for when they are allowed. In particular, it allows for varying degrees of coherence and flexibility when it comes to maintaining focus of a dialogue. Its formal nature supports the study of formal properties of specific dialogue protocols, especially on how they respect the underlying logic.
Credulous and Sceptical Argument Games for Preferred Semantics
 in Proceedings of JELIA’2000, The 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence
, 2000
"... . This paper presents dialectical proof theories for Dung's preferred semantics of defeasible argumentation. The proof theories have the form of argument games for testing membership of some (credulous reasoning) or all preferred extensions (sceptical reasoning). The credulous proof theory is fo ..."
Abstract

Cited by 60 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. This paper presents dialectical proof theories for Dung's preferred semantics of defeasible argumentation. The proof theories have the form of argument games for testing membership of some (credulous reasoning) or all preferred extensions (sceptical reasoning). The credulous proof theory is for the general case, while the sceptical version is for the case where preferred semantics coincides with stable semantics. The development of these argument games is especially motivated by applications of argumentation in automated negotiation, mediation of collective discussion and decision making, and intelligent tutoring. 1 Introduction An important approach to the study of nonmonotonic reasoning is that of logics for defeasible argumentation (for an overview see [25]). Within this approach, a unifying perspective is provided by the work of [9] and [4] (below called the `BDKT framework'). It takes as input a set of arguments ordered by a binary relation of `attack', and it produces...
SemiStable Semantics
, 2003
"... In this paper, we examine an argumentbased semantics called semistable semantics. Semistable semantics is quite close to traditional stable semantics in the sense that every stable extension is also a semistable extension. One of the advantages of semistable semantics is that there exists at le ..."
Abstract

Cited by 55 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper, we examine an argumentbased semantics called semistable semantics. Semistable semantics is quite close to traditional stable semantics in the sense that every stable extension is also a semistable extension. One of the advantages of semistable semantics is that there exists at least one semistable extension. Furthermore, if there also exists at least one stable extension, then the semistable extensions coincide with the stable extensions. This, and other properties, make semistable semantics an attractive alternative for the more traditional stable semantics, which until now has been widely used in fields such as logic programming and answer set programming.
On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms
, 2007
"... Argumentation theory has become an important topic in the field of AI. The basic idea is to construct arguments in favor and against a statement, to select the “acceptable” ones and, finally, to determine whether the original statement can be accepted or not. Several argumentation systems have been ..."
Abstract

Cited by 42 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Argumentation theory has become an important topic in the field of AI. The basic idea is to construct arguments in favor and against a statement, to select the “acceptable” ones and, finally, to determine whether the original statement can be accepted or not. Several argumentation systems have been proposed in the literature. Some of them, the socalled rulebased systems, use a particular logical language with strict and defeasible rules. While these systems are useful in different domains (e.g. legal reasoning), they unfortunately lead to very unintuitive results, as is discussed in this paper. In order to avoid such anomalies, in this paper we are interested in defining principles, called rationality postulates, that can be used to judge the quality of a rulebased argumentation system. In particular, we define two important rationality postulates that should be satisfied: the consistency and the closure of the results returned by that system. We then provide a relatively easy way in which these rationality postulates can be warranted for a particular rulebased argumentation system developed within a
Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argumentation schemes and . . .
, 2003
"... ..."
An axiomatic account of formal argumentation
 In Proceedings of the AAAI2005
, 2005
"... Argumentation theory has become an important topic in the field of AI. The basic idea is to construct arguments in favor and against a statement, to select the “acceptable ” ones and, finally, to determine whether the statement can be accepted or not. Dung’s elegant account of abstract argumentation ..."
Abstract

Cited by 40 (15 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Argumentation theory has become an important topic in the field of AI. The basic idea is to construct arguments in favor and against a statement, to select the “acceptable ” ones and, finally, to determine whether the statement can be accepted or not. Dung’s elegant account of abstract argumentation (Dung 1995) may have caused some to believe that defining an argumentation formalism is simply a matter of determining how arguments and their defeat relation can be constructed from a given knowledge base. Unfortunately, things are not that simple; many straightforward instantiations of Dung’s theory can lead to very unintuitive results, as is discussed in this paper. In order to avoid such anomalies, in this paper we are interested in defining some rules, called rationality postulates or axioms, that govern the well definition of an argumentation system. In particular, we define two important rationality postulates that any system should satisfy: the consistency and the closeness of the results returned by that system. We then provide a relatively easy way in which these quality postulates can be warranted by our argumentation system.
A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning
 in Proceedings of the tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
, 2005
"... This paper presents a logical formalisation of accrual of arguments as a form of inference. The formalisation is given within the logical framework of Dung as instantiated by Pollock, and is shown to satisfy three principles that any treatment of accrual should satisfy. The formalisation of accrual ..."
Abstract

Cited by 38 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper presents a logical formalisation of accrual of arguments as a form of inference. The formalisation is given within the logical framework of Dung as instantiated by Pollock, and is shown to satisfy three principles that any treatment of accrual should satisfy. The formalisation of accrual as inference is contrasted to knowledgerepresentation treatments of accrual. Also, the formalisation is applied to some concepts from the theory of evidential legal reasoning. 1.