Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Conciliatory Reasoning, Self-Defeat, and Abstract Argumentation.Aleks Https://Orcidorg Knoks - 2021 - Review of Symbolic Logic 16 (3):740-787.
    According to conciliatory views on the significance of disagreement, it’s rational for you to become less confident in your take on an issue in case your epistemic peer’s take on it is different. These views are intuitively appealing, but they also face a powerful objection: in scenarios that involve disagreements over their own correctness, conciliatory views appear to self-defeat and, thereby, issue inconsistent recommendations. This paper provides a response to this objection. Drawing on the work from defeasible logics paradigm and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Reasoning about actions and change in argumentation.E. Hadjisoteriou & A. Kakas - 2016 - Argument and Computation 6 (3):265-291.
    Volume 6, Issue 3, September 2015, Page 265-291.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • How to construct Remainder Sets for Paraconsistent Revisions: Preliminary Report.Rafael Testa, Eduardo Fermé, Marco Garapa & Maurício Reis - 2018 - 17th INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON NON-MONOTONIC REASONING.
    Revision operation is the consistent expansion of a theory by a new belief-representing sentence. We consider that in a paraconsistent setting this desideratum can be accomplished in at least three distinct ways: the output of a revision operation should be either non-trivial or non-contradictory (in general or relative to the new belief). In this paper those distinctions will be explored in the constructive level by showing how the remainder sets could be refined, capturing the key concepts of paraconsistency in a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Argument evaluation in multi-agent justification logics.Alfredo Burrieza & Antonio Yuste-Ginel - forthcoming - Logic Journal of the IGPL.
    Argument evaluation, one of the central problems in argumentation theory, consists in studying what makes an argument a good one. This paper proposes a formal approach to argument evaluation from the perspective of justification logic. We adopt a multi-agent setting, accepting the intuitive idea that arguments are always evaluated by someone. Two general restrictions are imposed on our analysis: non-deductive arguments are left out and the goal of argument evaluation is fixed: supporting a given proposition. Methodologically, our approach uses several (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Normality, Non-contamination and Logical Depth in Classical Natural Deduction.Marcello D’Agostino, Dov Gabbay & Sanjay Modgil - 2020 - Studia Logica 108 (2):291-357.
    In this paper we provide a detailed proof-theoretical analysis of a natural deduction system for classical propositional logic that (i) represents classical proofs in a more natural way than standard Gentzen-style natural deduction, (ii) admits of a simple normalization procedure such that normal proofs enjoy the Weak Subformula Property, (iii) provides the means to prove a Non-contamination Property of normal proofs that is not satisfied by normal proofs in the Gentzen tradition and is useful for applications, especially in formal argumentation, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • On the problem of making autonomous vehicles conform to traffic law.Henry Prakken - 2017 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 25 (3):341-363.
    Autonomous vehicles are one of the most spectacular recent developments of Artificial Intelligence. Among the problems that still need to be solved before they can fully autonomously participate in traffic is the one of making their behaviour conform to the traffic laws. This paper discusses this problem by way of a case study of Dutch traffic law. First it is discussed to what extent Dutch traffic law exhibits features that are traditionally said to pose challenges for AI & Law models, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Introduction to structured argumentation.Philippe Besnard, Alejandro Garcia, Anthony Hunter, Sanjay Modgil, Henry Prakken, Guillermo Simari & Francesca Toni - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (1):1-4.
    In abstract argumentation, each argument is regarded as atomic. There is no internal structure to an argument. Also, there is no specification of what is an argument or an attack. They are assumed to be given. This abstract perspective provides many advantages for studying the nature of argumentation, but it does not cover all our needs for understanding argumentation or for building tools for supporting or undertaking argumentation. If we want a more detailed formalization of arguments than is available with (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  • The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial.Sanjay Modgil & Henry Prakken - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (1):31-62.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   67 citations  
  • ω-Groundedness of argumentation and completeness of grounded dialectical proof procedures.Phan Minh Dung, Phan Minh Thang & Jiraporn Pooksook - 2024 - Argument and Computation:1-45.
    Dialectical proof procedures in assumption-based argumentation are in general sound but not complete with respect to both the credulous and skeptical semantics (due to non-terminating loops). This raises the question of whether we could describe exactly what such procedures compute. In a previous paper, we introduce infinite arguments to represent possibly non-terminating computations and present dialectical proof procedures that are both sound and complete with respect to the credulous semantics of assumption-based argumentation with infinite arguments. In this paper, we study (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • When is argumentation deductive?Henry Prakken - 2023 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 33 (3-4):212-223.
    1. In May 2013 I had an email exchange with Philippe Besnard, continued in September that year, on his paper with Amgoud and Besnard (2013) and its relevance for the ASPIC+ framework (Modgil & Prak...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Inferring attack relations for gradual semantics.Nir Oren & Bruno Yun - 2023 - Argument and Computation 14 (3):327-345.
    A gradual semantics takes a weighted argumentation framework as input and outputs a final acceptability degree for each argument, with different semantics performing the computation in different manners. In this work, we consider the problem of attack inference. That is, given a gradual semantics, a set of arguments with associated initial weights, and the final desirable acceptability degrees associated with each argument, we seek to determine whether there is a set of attacks on those arguments such that we can obtain (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Evaluation of argument strength in attack graphs: Foundations and semantics.Leila Amgoud, Dragan Doder & Srdjan Vesic - 2022 - Artificial Intelligence 302 (C):103607.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Two factor-based models of precedential constraint: a comparison and proposal.Robert Mullins - 2023 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 31 (4):703-738.
    The article considers two different interpretations of the reason model of precedent pioneered by John Horty. On a plausible interpretation of the reason model, past cases provide reasons to prioritize reasons favouring the same outcome as a past case over reasons favouring the opposing outcome. Here I consider the merits of this approach to the role of precedent in legal reasoning in comparison with a closely related view favoured by some legal theorists, according to which past cases provide reasons for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Classical logic, argument and dialectic.M. D'Agostino & S. Modgil - 2018 - Artificial Intelligence 262 (C):15-51.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Law and logic: A review from an argumentation perspective.Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor - 2015 - Artificial Intelligence 227 (C):214-245.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • Informalizing Formal Logic.Antonis Kakas - 2019 - Informal Logic 39 (2):169-204.
    This paper presents a way in which formal logic can be understood and reformulated in terms of argumentation that can help us unify formal and informal reasoning. Classical deductive reasoning will be expressed entirely in terms of notions and concepts from argumentation so that formal logical entailment is equivalently captured via the arguments that win between those supporting concluding formulae and arguments supporting contradictory formulae. This allows us to go beyond Classical Logic and smoothly connect it with human reasoning, thus (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • An analysis of critical-link semantics with variable degrees of justification.Floriana Grasso, Floris Bex & Nancy Green - 2016 - Argument and Computation 7 (1):35-53.
    This paper is to critically examines Pollock’s critical-link semantics with variable degrees of justification. Some possibly counterintuitive consequences of Pollock’s definition of degrees of justification are identified and a modified definition is proposed which avoids these consequences. Then the new solution is applied to the case of so-called presumptive defeat. A second contribution of the paper is to show how the modified semantics can be applied to the ASPIC+ framework: first the ASPIC+ framework is modified to allow for variable degrees (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Interpretation, Argumentation, and the Determinacy of Law.Giovanni Sartor - 2023 - Ratio Juris 36 (3):214-241.
    This article models legal interpretation through argumentation and provides a logical analysis of interpretive arguments, their conflicts, and the resulting indeterminacies. Interpretive arguments are modelled as defeasible inferences, which can be challenged and defeated by counterarguments and be reinstated through further arguments. It is shown what claims are possibly (defensibly) or necessarily (justifiably) supported by the arguments constructible from a given interpretive basis, i.e., a set of interpretive canons coupled with reasons for their application. It is finally established under what (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Infinite arguments and semantics of dialectical proof procedures.Phan Minh Thang, Phan Minh Dung & Jiraporn Pooksook - 2022 - Argument and Computation 13 (2):121-157.
    We study the semantics of dialectical proof procedures. As dialectical proof procedures are in general sound but not complete wrt admissibility semantics, a natural question here is whether we could give a more precise semantical characterization of what they compute. Based on a new notion of infinite arguments representing loops, we introduce a stricter notion of admissibility, referred to as strict admissibility, and show that dialectical proof procedures are in general sound and complete wrt strict admissibility.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Comparing logic programming and formal argumentation; the case of ideal and eager semantics.Martin Caminada, Sri Harikrishnan & Samy Sá - 2022 - Argument and Computation 13 (1):93-120.
    The connection between logic programming and formal argumentation has been studied starting from the landmark 1995 paper of Dung. Subsequent work has identified a standard translation from logic programs to argumentation frameworks, under which pairwise correspondences hold between various logic programming semantics and various formal argumentation semantics. This includes the correspondence between 3-valued stable and complete semantics, between well-founded and grounded semantics and between 2-valued stable and stable semantics. In the current paper, we show that the existing translation is able (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • (1 other version)Defeasible normative reasoning.Wolfgang Spohn - 2020 - Synthese 197 (4):1391-1428.
    The paper is motivated by the need of accounting for the practical syllogism as a piece of defeasible reasoning. To meet the need, the paper first refers to ranking theory as an account of defeasible descriptive reasoning. It then argues that two kinds of ought need to be distinguished, purely normative and fact-regarding obligations (in analogy to intrinsic and extrinsic utilities). It continues arguing that both kinds of ought can be iteratively revised and should hence be represented by ranking functions, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • An Argumentation‐Based Analysis of the Simonshaven Case.Henry Prakken - 2020 - Topics in Cognitive Science 12 (4):1068-1091.
    Prakken gives an argumentation‐based analysis of the manslaughter case using logical tools developed in AI. Prakken regards evidential argumentation as the construction and attack of ‘trees of inference’ from evidence to conclusions by applying generalizations. He argues that this approach clearly shows how evidence and hypotheses relate and what are the points of disagreement, but that it cannot give a clear overview over a case and lacks a systematic account of degrees of uncertainty.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • An abstract and structured account of dialectical argument strength.Henry Prakken - 2024 - Artificial Intelligence 335 (C):104193.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A postulate-driven study of logical argumentation.Ofer Arieli, AnneMarie Borg & Christian Straßer - 2023 - Artificial Intelligence 322 (C):103966.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Argumentation schemes for clinical decision support.Isabel Sassoon, Nadin Kökciyan, Sanjay Modgil & Simon Parsons - 2021 - Argument and Computation 12 (3):329-355.
    This paper demonstrates how argumentation schemes can be used in decision support systems that help clinicians in making treatment decisions. The work builds on the use of computational argumentation, a rigorous approach to reasoning with complex data that places strong emphasis on being able to justify and explain the decisions that are recommended. The main contribution of the paper is to present a novel set of specialised argumentation schemes that can be used in the context of a clinical decision support (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Strong admissibility revisited: Theory and applications.Martin Caminada & Paul Dunne - 2020 - Argument and Computation 10 (3):277-300.
    In the current paper, we re-examine the concept of strong admissibility, as was originally introduced by Baroni and Giacomin. We examine the formal properties of strong admissibility, both in its e...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • (1 other version)Defeasible normative reasoning.Wolfgang Spohn - 2019 - Synthese:1-38.
    The paper is motivated by the need of accounting for the practical syllogism as a piece of defeasible reasoning. To meet the need, the paper first refers to ranking theory as an account of defeasible descriptive reasoning. It then argues that two kinds of ought need to be distinguished, purely normative and fact-regarding obligations. It continues arguing that both kinds of ought can be iteratively revised and should hence be represented by ranking functions, too, just as iteratively revisable beliefs. Its (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Arguing about constitutive and regulative norms.Gabriella Pigozzi & Leendert van der Torre - 2018 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 28 (2-3):189-217.
    Formal arguments are often represented by pairs, but in this paper we consider normative arguments represented by sequences of triples, where constitutive norms derive institutional facts from brute facts, and regulative norms derive deontic facts like obligations and permissions from institutional facts. The institutional facts may be seen as the reasons explaining or warranting the deontic obligations and permissions, and therefore they can be attacked by other normative arguments too. We represent different aspects of normative reasoning by different kinds of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Firewall configuration: An application of multiagent metalevel argumentation.Andy Applebaum, Zimi Li, Karl Levitt, Simon Parsons, Jeff Rowe & Elizabeth I. Sklar - 2016 - Argument and Computation 7 (2-3):201-221.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Explanation–Question–Response dialogue: An argumentative tool for explainable AI.Federico Castagna, Peter McBurney & Simon Parsons - 2024 - Argument and Computation:1-23.
    Advancements and deployments of AI-based systems, especially Deep Learning-driven generative language models, have accomplished impressive results over the past few years. Nevertheless, these remarkable achievements are intertwined with a related fear that such technologies might lead to a general relinquishing of our lives’s control to AIs. This concern, which also motivates the increasing interest in the eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) research field, is mostly caused by the opacity of the output of deep learning systems and the way that it is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Structured Argumentation Framework for Modeling Debates in the Formal Sciences.Marcos Cramer & Jérémie Dauphin - 2020 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 51 (2):219-241.
    Scientific research in the formal sciences comes in multiple degrees of formality: fully formal work; rigorous proofs that practitioners know to be formalizable in principle; and informal work like rough proof sketches and considerations about the advantages and disadvantages of various formal systems. This informal work includes informal and semi-formal debates between formal scientists, e.g. about the acceptability of foundational principles and proposed axiomatizations. In this paper, we propose to use the methodology of structured argumentation theory to produce a formal (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Sequent-based logical argumentation.Ofer Arieli & Christian Straßer - 2015 - Argument and Computation 6 (1):73-99.
    We introduce a general approach for representing and reasoning with argumentation-based systems. In our framework arguments are represented by Gentzen-style sequents, attacks between arguments are represented by sequent elimination rules, and deductions are made according to Dung-style skeptical or credulous semantics. This framework accommodates different languages and logics in which arguments may be represented, allows for a flexible and simple way of expressing and identifying arguments, supports a variety of attack relations, and is faithful to standard methods of drawing conclusions (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Assumption-based argumentation with preferences and goals for patient-centric reasoning with interacting clinical guidelines.Kristijonas Čyras, Tiago Oliveira, Amin Karamlou & Francesca Toni - 2021 - Argument and Computation 12 (2):149-189.
    A paramount, yet unresolved issue in personalised medicine is that of automated reasoning with clinical guidelines in multimorbidity settings. This entails enabling machines to use computerised generic clinical guideline recommendations and patient-specific information to yield patient-tailored recommendations where interactions arising due to multimorbidities are resolved. This problem is further complicated by patient management desiderata, in particular the need to account for patient-centric goals as well as preferences of various parties involved. We propose to solve this problem of automated reasoning with (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Before and after Dung: Argumentation in AI and Law.T. J. M. Bench-Capon - 2020 - Argument and Computation 11 (1-2):221-238.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The Recursive Argument Structure.Sung-Jun Pyon - forthcoming - Argumentation:1-31.
    The aim of this paper is to critically review the traditional typology of argument macrostructures, particularly, the dichotomy between linked and convergent structure. We have found an argument structure that does not fall under one of those five traditional categories: basic, serial, divergent, linked and convergent. We show that the new argument structure, which we call the recursive structure, is not rare-earth, but ubiquitous in real argumentation. Then, we propose and justify a new approach to diagramming arguments of the structure. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Computational complexity of flat and generic Assumption-Based Argumentation, with and without probabilities.Kristijonas Čyras, Quentin Heinrich & Francesca Toni - 2021 - Artificial Intelligence 293 (C):103449.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • An analysis of critical-link semantics with variable degrees of justification.Bin Wei & Henry Prakken - 2016 - Argument and Computation 7 (1):35-53.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Before and after Dung: Argumentation in AI and Law.Francesca Toni - 2020 - Argument and Computation 11 (1-2):221-238.
    Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks have had a very significant role in the rise in interest in argumentation throughout this century. In this paper we will explore the impact of this seminal...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • 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  
  • A tutorial on assumption-based argumentation.Francesca Toni - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (1):89-117.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   32 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  
  • Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: the first decade. [REVIEW]Guido Governatori, Trevor Bench-Capon, Bart Verheij, Michał Araszkiewicz, Enrico Francesconi & Matthias Grabmair - 2022 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 30 (4):481-519.
    The first issue of _Artificial Intelligence and Law_ journal was published in 1992. This paper provides commentaries on landmark papers from the first decade of that journal. The topics discussed include reasoning with cases, argumentation, normative reasoning, dialogue, representing legal knowledge and neural networks.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Deductive and abductive argumentation based on information graphs.Remi Wieten, Floris Bex, Henry Prakken & Silja Renooij - 2022 - Argument and Computation 13 (1):49-91.
    In this paper, we propose an argumentation formalism that allows for both deductive and abductive argumentation, where ‘deduction’ is used as an umbrella term for both defeasible and strict ‘forward’ inference. Our formalism is based on an extended version of our previously proposed information graph formalism, which provides a precise account of the interplay between deductive and abductive inference and causal and evidential information. In the current version, we consider additional types of information such as abstractions which allow domain experts (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • An axiomatic analysis of structured argumentation with priorities.Phan Minh Dung - 2016 - Artificial Intelligence 231 (C):107-150.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Abstract argumentation frameworks with strong and weak constraints.Gianvincenzo Alfano, Sergio Greco, Domenico Mandaglio, Francesco Parisi & Irina Trubitsyna - 2024 - Artificial Intelligence 336 (C):104205.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Bridging Informal Reasoning and Formal Proving: The Role of Argumentation in Proof-Events.Sofia Almpani & Petros Stefaneas - forthcoming - Foundations of Science:1-25.
    This paper explores the relationship between informal reasoning, creativity in mathematics, and problem solving. It underscores the importance of environments that promote interaction, hypothesis generation, examination, refutation, derivation of new solutions, drawing conclusions, and reasoning with others, as key factors in enhancing mathematical creativity. Drawing on argumentation logic, the paper proposes a novel approach to uncover specific characteristics in the development of formalized proving using “proof-events.” Argumentation logic can offer reasoning mechanisms that facilitate these environments. This paper proposes how argumentation (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • States, goals and values: Revisiting practical reasoning.Katie Atkinson & Trevor Bench-Capon - 2016 - Argument and Computation 7 (2-3):135-154.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Rationality and maximal consistent sets for a fragment of ASPIC + without undercut.Gabriella Pigozzi & Srdjan Vesic - 2021 - Argument and Computation 12 (1):3-47.
    Structured argumentation formalisms, such as ASPIC +, offer a formal model of defeasible reasoning. Usually such formalisms are highly parametrized and modular in order to provide a unifying framework in which different forms of reasoning can be expressed. This generality comes at the price that, in their most general form, formalisms such as ASPIC + do not satisfy important rationality postulates, such as non-interference. Similarly, links to other forms of knowledge representation, such as reasoning with maximal consistent sets of rules, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • A general semi-structured formalism for computational argumentation: Definition, properties, and examples of application.Pietro Baroni, Massimiliano Giacomin & Beishui Liao - 2018 - Artificial Intelligence 257 (C):158-207.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Rationality and maximal consistent sets for a fragment of ASPIC + without undercut.Jesse Heyninck & Christian Straßer - 2021 - Argument and Computation 12 (1):3-47.
    Structured argumentation formalisms, such as ASPIC +, offer a formal model of defeasible reasoning. Usually such formalisms are highly parametrized and modular in order to provide a unifying framework in which different forms of reasoning can be expressed. This generality comes at the price that, in their most general form, formalisms such as ASPIC + do not satisfy important rationality postulates, such as non-interference. Similarly, links to other forms of knowledge representation, such as reasoning with maximal consistent sets of rules, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations