Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation via the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation
Argument and Computation 3 (1):21 - 47 (2012)
|Abstract||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 argumentation. Since ASPIC+ is defined to generate Dung-style abstract argumentation frameworks, this in effect translates Carneades graphs into abstract argumentation frameworks. For this translation, we prove a formal correspondence and show that certain rationality postulates hold. It is furthermore proved that Carneades always induces a unique Dung extension, which is the same in all of Dung's semantics, allowing us to generalise Carneades to cycle-containing structures|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken & Douglas N. Walton (2007). The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof. Artificial Intelligence 171 (10-15):875-896.
Henry Prakken (2011). An Abstract Framework for Argumentation with Structured Arguments. Argument and Computation 1 (2):93-124.
Dov Guido Boella, Leendert der Torre M. Gabbavany & Serena Villata (forthcoming). Meta-Argumentation Modelling I: Methodology and Techniques. Studia Logica.
Robert A. Kowalski & Francesca Toni (1996). Abstract Argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):275-296.
Douglas Walton with Chris Reed, The Carneades Argumentation Framework: Using Presumptions and Exceptions to Model Critical Questions.
Douglas Walton (2012). Building a System for Finding Objections to an Argument. Argumentation 26 (3):369-391.
Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton (2012). Presumptions in Legal Argumentation. Ratio Juris 25 (3):271-300.
Bart Verheij (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
Martin W. A. Caminada & Dov M. Gabbay (forthcoming). A Logical Account of Formal Argumentation. Studia Logica.
Phan Minh Dung & Phan Minh Thang (2009). Modular Argumentation for Modelling Legal Doctrines in Common Law of Contract. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (3):167-182.
Henry Prakken (2012). Reconstructing Popov V. Hayashi in a Framework for Argumentation with Structured Arguments and Dungean Semantics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1):57-82.
Ana Nettel & Georges Roque (2012). Persuasive Argumentation Versus Manipulation. Argumentation 26 (1):55-69.
Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton (2003). Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
Added to index2012-03-14
Total downloads3 ( #201,930 of 549,078 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,078 )
How can I increase my downloads?