Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties.Nikos Gorogiannis & Anthony Hunter - 2011 - Artificial Intelligence 175 (9-10):1479-1497.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  • How Computational Tools Can Help Rhetoric and Informal Logic with Argument Invention.Douglas Walton & Thomas F. Gordon - 2019 - Argumentation 33 (2):269-295.
    This paper compares the features and methods of the two leading implemented systems that offer a tool for helping a user to find or invent arguments to support or attack a designated conclusion, the Carneades Argumentation System and the IBM Watson Debater tool. The central aim is to contribute to the understanding of scholars in informal logic, rhetoric and argumentation on how these two software systems can be useful for them. One contribution of the paper is to explain to these (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Norms and value based reasoning: justifying compliance and violation.Trevor Bench-Capon & Sanjay Modgil - 2017 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 25 (1):29-64.
    There is an increasing need for norms to be embedded in technology as the widespread deployment of applications such as autonomous driving, warfare and big data analysis for crime fighting and counter-terrorism becomes ever closer. Current approaches to norms in multi-agent systems tend either to simply make prohibited actions unavailable, or to provide a set of rules which the agent is obliged to follow, either as part of its design or to avoid sanctions and punishments. In this paper we argue (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Defeasible reasoning and informal fallacies.Douglas Walton - 2011 - Synthese 179 (3):377 - 407.
    This paper argues that some traditional fallacies should be considered as reasonable arguments when used as part of a properly conducted dialog. It is shown that argumentation schemes, formal dialog models, and profiles of dialog are useful tools for studying properties of defeasible reasoning and fallacies. It is explained how defeasible reasoning of the most common sort can deteriorate into fallacious argumentation in some instances. Conditions are formulated that can be used as normative tools to judge whether a given defeasible (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • (1 other version)Probabilistic interpretations of argumentative attacks: Logical and experimental results.Niki Pfeifer & Christian G. Fermüller - 2023 - Argument and Computation 14 (1):75-107.
    We present an interdisciplinary approach to argumentation combining logical, probabilistic, and psychological perspectives. We investigate logical attack principles which relate attacks among claims with logical form. For example, we consider the principle that an argument that attacks another argument claiming A triggers the existence of an attack on an argument featuring the stronger claim A ∧ B. We formulate a number of such principles pertaining to conjunctive, disjunctive, negated, and implicational claims. Some of these attack principles seem to be prima (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • A logic of defeasible argumentation: Constructing arguments in justification logic.Stipe Pandžić - 2022 - Argument and Computation 13 (1):3-47.
    In the 1980s, Pollock’s work on default reasons started the quest in the AI community for a formal system of defeasible argumentation. The main goal of this paper is to provide a logic of structured defeasible arguments using the language of justification logic. In this logic, we introduce defeasible justification assertions of the type t : F that read as “t is a defeasible reason that justifies F”. Such formulas are then interpreted as arguments and their acceptance semantics is given (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Classical logic, argument and dialectic.M. D'Agostino & S. Modgil - 2018 - Artificial Intelligence 262 (C):15-51.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Automata for infinite argumentation structures.Pietro Baroni, Federico Cerutti, Paul E. Dunne & Massimiliano Giacomin - 2013 - Artificial Intelligence 203 (C):104-150.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks.Sanjay Modgil - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence 173 (9-10):901-934.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   73 citations  
  • Bayesian Epistemology.Jürgen Landes - 2022 - Kriterion – Journal of Philosophy 36 (1):1-7.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • On the resolution-based family of abstract argumentation semantics and its grounded instance.P. Baroni, P. E. Dunne & M. Giacomin - 2011 - Artificial Intelligence 175 (3-4):791-813.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • On the merging of Dung's argumentation systems.Sylvie Coste-Marquis, Caroline Devred, Sébastien Konieczny, Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex & Pierre Marquis - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence 171 (10-15):730-753.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph-theoretic constraints.Paul E. Dunne - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence 171 (10-15):701-729.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   30 citations  
  • Adaptive Logics for Defeasible Reasoning.Christian Straßer - 2014 - Springer.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Abstract solvers for Dung’s argumentation frameworks.Remi Brochenin, Thomas Linsbichler, Marco Maratea, Johannes P. Wallner & Stefan Woltran - 2018 - Argument and Computation 9 (1):41-72.
    solvers are a quite recent method to uniformly describe algorithms in a rigorous formal way via graphs. Compared to traditional methods like pseudo-code descriptions, abstract solvers have...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Correcting the Brain? The Convergence of Neuroscience, Neurotechnology, Psychiatry, and Artificial Intelligence.Stephen Rainey & Yasemin J. Erden - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (5):2439-2454.
    The incorporation of neural-based technologies into psychiatry offers novel means to use neural data in patient assessment and clinical diagnosis. However, an over-optimistic technologisation of neuroscientifically-informed psychiatry risks the conflation of technological and psychological norms. Neurotechnologies promise fast, efficient, broad psychiatric insights not readily available through conventional observation of patients. Recording and processing brain signals provides information from ‘beneath the skull’ that can be interpreted as an account of neural processing and that can provide a basis to evaluate general behaviour (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • An argumentation model of forensic evidence in fine art attribution.Douglas Walton - 2013 - AI and Society 28 (4):509-530.
    In this paper, a case study is conducted to test the capability of the Carneades Argumentation System to model the argumentation in a case where forensic evidence was collected in an investigation triggered by a conflict among art experts on the attribution of a painting to Leonardo da Vinci. A claim that a portrait of a young woman in a Renaissance dress could be attributed to da Vinci was initially dismissed by art experts. Forensic investigations were carried out, and evidence (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Abstract argumentation and explanation applied to scientific debates.Dunja Šešelja & Christian Straßer - 2013 - Synthese 190 (12):2195-2217.
    argumentation has been shown to be a powerful tool within many fields such as artificial intelligence, logic and legal reasoning. In this paper we enhance Dung’s well-known abstract argumentation framework with explanatory capabilities. We show that an explanatory argumentation framework (EAF) obtained in this way is a useful tool for the modeling of scientific debates. On the one hand, EAFs allow for the representation of explanatory and justificatory arguments constituting rivaling scientific views. On the other hand, different procedures for selecting (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Behavioral Experiments for Assessing the Abstract Argumentation Semantics of Reinstatement.Iyad Rahwan, Mohammed I. Madakkatel, Jean-François Bonnefon, Ruqiyabi N. Awan & Sherief Abdallah - 2010 - Cognitive Science 34 (8):1483-1502.
    Argumentation is a very fertile area of research in Artificial Intelligence, and various semantics have been developed to predict when an argument can be accepted, depending on the abstract structure of its defeaters and defenders. When these semantics make conflicting predictions, theoretical arbitration typically relies on ad hoc examples and normative intuition about what prediction ought to be the correct one. We advocate a complementary, descriptive-experimental method, based on the collection of behavioral data about the way human reasoners handle these (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Inconsistency measures for probabilistic logics.Matthias Thimm - 2013 - Artificial Intelligence 197 (C):1-24.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Equivalence for the G 3 ′ -stable models semantics.José Luis Carballido, Mauricio Osorio & José Ramón Arrazola - 2010 - Journal of Applied Logic 8 (1):82-96.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Stratified Belief Bases Revision with Argumentative Inference.Marcelo Alejandro Falappa, Alejandro Javier García, Gabriele Kern-Isberner & Guillermo Ricardo Simari - 2013 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 42 (1):161-193.
    We propose a revision operator on a stratified belief base, i.e., a belief base that stores beliefs in different strata corresponding to the value an agent assigns to these beliefs. Furthermore, the operator will be defined as to perform the revision in such a way that information is never lost upon revision but stored in a stratum or layer containing information perceived as having a lower value. In this manner, if the revision of one layer leads to the rejection of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Confronting value-based argumentation frameworks with people’s assessment of argument strength.Gustavo A. Bodanza & Esteban Freidin - 2023 - Argument and Computation 14 (3):247-273.
    We reported a series of experiments carried out to confront the underlying intuitions of value-based argumentation frameworks (VAFs) with the intuitions of ordinary people. Our goal was twofold. On the one hand, we intended to test VAF as a descriptive theory of human argument evaluations. On the other, we aimed to gain new insights from empirical data that could serve to improve VAF as a normative model. The experiments showed that people’s acceptance of arguments deviates from VAF’s semantics and is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Argumentation frameworks with necessities and their relationship with logic programs.Farid Nouioua & Sara Boutouhami - 2023 - Argument and Computation 14 (1):17-58.
    This paper presents a comprehensive study of argumentation frameworks with necessities (AFNs), a bipolar extension of Dung Abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) where the support relation captures a positive interaction between arguments having the meaning of necessity: the acceptance of an argument may require the acceptance of other argument(s). The paper discusses new main acceptability semantics for AFNs and their characterization both by a direct approach and a labelling approach. It examines the relationship between AFNs and Dung AFs and shows the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Did he jump or was he pushed?: Abductive practical reasoning.Katie Atkinson - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (2):79-99.
    In this paper, we present a particular role for abductive reasoning in law by applying it in the context of an argumentation scheme for practical reasoning. We present a particular scheme, based on an established scheme for practical reasoning, that can be used to reason abductively about how an agent might have acted to reach a particular scenario, and the motivations for doing so. Plausibility here depends on a satisfactory explanation of why this particular agent followed these motivations in the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Argumentation with justified preferences.Sung-Jun Pyon - 2024 - Argument and Computation 15 (2):205-250.
    It is often necessary and reasonable to justify preferences before reasoning from them. Moreover, justifying a preference ordering is reduced to justifying the criterion that produces the ordering. This paper builds on the well-known ASPIC+ formalism to develop a model that integrates justifying qualitative preferences with reasoning from the justified preferences. We first introduce a notion of preference criterion in order to model the way in which preferences are justified by an argumentation framework. We also adapt the notion of argumentation (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The computational complexity of ideal semantics.Paul E. Dunne - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence 173 (18):1559-1591.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   25 citations  
  • Abstract argumentation with conditional preferences.Michael Bernreiter, Wolfgang Dvořák & Stefan Woltran - 2024 - Argument and Computation 15 (2):161-189.
    In this paper, we study conditional preferences in abstract argumentation by introducing a new generalization of Dung-style argumentation frameworks (AFs) called Conditional Preference-based AFs (CPAFs). Each subset of arguments in a CPAF can be associated with its own preference relation. This generalizes existing approaches for preference-handling in abstract argumentation, and allows us to reason about conditional preferences in a general way. We conduct a principle-based analysis of CPAFs and compare them to related generalizations of AFs. Specifically, we highlight similarities and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Augmenting tractable fragments of abstract argumentation.Wolfgang Dvořák, Sebastian Ordyniak & Stefan Szeider - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence 186 (C):157-173.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Towards a framework for computational persuasion with applications in behaviour change1.Anthony Hunter - 2018 - Argument and Computation 9 (1):15-40.
    Persuasion is an activity that involves one party trying to induce another party to believe something or to do something. It is an important and multifaceted human facility. Obviously, sales and ma...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Parametric properties of ideal semantics.Paul E. Dunne, Wolfgang Dvořák & Stefan Woltran - 2013 - Artificial Intelligence 202 (C):1-28.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method.Beishui Liao, Li Jin & Robert C. Koons - 2011 - Artificial Intelligence 175 (11):1790-1814.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • Algorithms and complexity results for persuasive argumentation.Eun Jung Kim, Sebastian Ordyniak & Stefan Szeider - 2011 - Artificial Intelligence 175 (9-10):1722-1736.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Belief Revision and Computational Argumentation: A Critical Comparison.Pietro Baroni, Eduardo Fermé, Massimiliano Giacomin & Guillermo Ricardo Simari - 2022 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 31 (4):555-589.
    This paper aims at comparing and relating belief revision and argumentation as approaches to model reasoning processes. Referring to some prominent literature references in both fields, we will discuss their (implicit or explicit) assumptions on the modeled processes and hence commonalities and differences in the forms of reasoning they are suitable to deal with. The intended contribution is on one hand assessing the (not fully explored yet) relationships between two lively research fields in the broad area of defeasible reasoning and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Encoding deductive argumentation in quantified Boolean formulae.Philippe Besnard, Anthony Hunter & Stefan Woltran - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence 173 (15):1406-1423.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • A general account of argumentation with preferences.Sanjay Modgil & Henry Prakken - 2013 - Artificial Intelligence 195 (C):361-397.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   63 citations  
  • Weighted argument systems: Basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results.Paul E. Dunne, Anthony Hunter, Peter McBurney, Simon Parsons & Michael Wooldridge - 2011 - Artificial Intelligence 175 (2):457-486.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  • Characterizing strong equivalence for argumentation frameworks.Emilia Oikarinen & Stefan Woltran - 2011 - Artificial Intelligence 175 (14-15):1985-2009.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Audiences in argumentation frameworks.Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon, Sylvie Doutre & Paul E. Dunne - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence 171 (1):42-71.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   46 citations  
  • On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games: 25 years later.Pietro Baroni, Francesca Toni & Bart Verheij - 2020 - Argument and Computation 11 (1-2):1-14.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems.Katie Atkinson & Trevor Bench-Capon - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence 171 (10-15):855-874.
    In this paper we describe an approach to practical reasoning, reasoning about what it is best for a particular agent to do in a given situation, based on presumptive justifications of action through the instantiation of an argument scheme, which is then subject to examination through a series of critical questions. We identify three particular aspects of practical reasoning which distinguish it from theoretical reasoning. We next provide an argument scheme and an associated set of critical questions which is able (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   64 citations  
  • Algorithms for decision problems in argument systems under preferred semantics.Samer Nofal, Katie Atkinson & Paul E. Dunne - 2014 - Artificial Intelligence 207 (C):23-51.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation via the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation.Bas van Gijzel & Henry Prakken - 2012 - Argument and Computation 3 (1):21 - 47.
    Carneades is a recently proposed formalism for structured argumentation with varying proof standards, inspired by legal reasoning, but more generally applicable. Its distinctive feature is that each statement can be given its own proof standard, which is claimed to allow a more natural account of reasoning under burden of proof than existing formalisms for structured argumentation, in which proof standards are defined globally. In this article, the two formalisms are formally related by translating Carneades into the ASPIC+ framework for structured (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • A dialogue system specification for explanation.Douglas Walton - 2011 - Synthese 182 (3):349-374.
    This paper builds a dialectical system of explanation with speech act rules that define the kinds of moves allowed, like requesting and offering an explanation. Pre and post-condition rules for the speech acts determine when a particular speech act can be put forward as a move in the dialogue, and what type of move or moves must follow it. A successful explanation has been achieved when there has been a transfer of understanding from the party giving the explanation to the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Structural constraints for dynamic operators in abstract argumentation.Johannes P. Wallner - 2020 - Argument and Computation 11 (1-2):151-190.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations