Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Artificial Intelligence as Law: Presidential Address to the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. [REVIEW]Bart Verheij - 2020 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 28 (2):181-206.
    Information technology is so ubiquitous and AI’s progress so inspiring that also legal professionals experience its benefits and have high expectations. At the same time, the powers of AI have been rising so strongly that it is no longer obvious that AI applications help promoting a good society; in fact they are sometimes harmful. Hence many argue that safeguards are needed for AI to be trustworthy, social, responsible, humane, ethical. In short: AI should be good for us. But how to (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Dung’s Argumentation is Essentially Equivalent to Classical Propositional Logic with the Peirce–Quine Dagger.Dov M. Gabbay - 2011 - Logica Universalis 5 (2):255-318.
    In this paper we show that some versions of Dung’s abstract argumentation frames are equivalent to classical propositional logic. In fact, Dung’s attack relation is none other than the generalised Peirce–Quine dagger connective of classical logic which can generate the other connectives ${\neg, \wedge, \vee, \to}$ of classical logic. After establishing the above correspondence we offer variations of the Dung argumentation frames in parallel to variations of classical logic, such as resource logics, predicate logic, etc., etc., and create resource argumentation (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 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.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Core Ontology for Requirements.Ivan J. Jureta, John Mylopoulos & Stéphane Faulkner - 2009 - Applied Ontology 4 (3):169-244.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Argument Diagramming in Logic, Artificial Intelligence, and Law.Chris Reed, Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence, and Law 22 (1):87-109.
  • 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 (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • A Computational Model of Argumentation in Agreement Negotiation Processes.Mare Koit & Haldur Õim - 2015 - Argument and Computation 6 (2):101-129.
    The paper describes a computational model that we have implemented in an experimental dialogue system. Communication in a natural language between two participants A and B is considered, where A has a communicative goal that his/her partner B will make a decision to perform an action D. A argues the usefulness, pleasantness, etc. of D, in order to guide B's reasoning in a desirable direction. A computational model of argumentation is developed, which includes reasoning. Our model is based on the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Toulmin: Razonamiento, Sentido Común y Derrotabilidad.Claudio Fuentes Bravo & Cristián Santibáñez Yãnez - 2014 - Kriterion: Journal of Philosophy 55 (130):531-548.
    Primeiramente, oferecemos uma apresentação teórica da representação do pensamento prático, começando pela distinção entre silogismo dialético e silogismo demonstrativo. Fazemos referência à crítica de Toulmin contra o dedutivismo dominante de seu tempo. Em seguida, fornecemos argumentos para apoiar a relevância heurística do modelo de Toulmin para entender a discussão sobre a inclusão da lógica padrão na representação do pensamento comum. Afirmamos que o projeto analítico toulmaniano permite entender, com clareza metódica, a derrotabilidade dos argumentos do senso comum por meio da (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin’s Scheme.Bart Verheij - 2001 - Argumentation 19 (3):347-371.
    Toulmin’s scheme for the layout of arguments represents an influential tool for the analysis of arguments. The scheme enriches the traditional premises-conclusion model of arguments by distinguishing additional elements, like warrant, backing and rebuttal. The present paper contains a formal elaboration of Toulmin’s scheme, and extends it with a treatment of the formal evaluation of Toulmin-style arguments, which Toulmin did not discuss at all. Arguments are evaluated in terms of a so-called dialectical interpretation of their assumptions. In such an interpretation, (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Argumentos Máximamente Específicos En Argumentación Rebatible.Cláudio Andrés Alessio - 2016 - Manuscrito 39 (2):5-58.
    Resumen DeLP is a defeasible argumentation system that captures common sense reasoning features. Examples proposed in the literature show that DeLP gets counterintuitive results. We suggest a possible cause of this problem and we propose an approach to neutralize it. The approach is based on the pre-selection criterion of arguments, called maximal specificity. The criterion establishes that an argument will be considered like maximally specific only if, for every argument based on more specific evidence which does not explain the same (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Schemes of Inference, Conflict, and Preference in a Computational Model of Argument.Floris Bex & Chris Reed - 2011 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 23 (36).
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Evaluating Dialectical Structures.Gregor Betz - 2009 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 38 (3):283-312.
    This paper develops concepts and procedures for the evaluation of complex debates. They provide means for answering such questions as whether a thesis has to be considered as proven or disproven in a debate or who carries a burden of proof. While being based on classical logic, this framework represents an (argument-based) approach to non-monotonic, or defeasible reasoning. Debates are analysed as dialectical structures, i.e. argumentation systems with an attack- as well as a support-relationship. The recursive status assignment over the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Evaluating Dialectical Structures with Bayesian Methods.Gregor Betz - 2008 - Synthese 163 (1):25-44.
    This paper shows how complex argumentation, analyzed as dialectical structures, can be evaluated within a Bayesian framework by interpreting them as coherence constraints on subjective degrees of belief. A dialectical structure is a set of arguments (premiss-conclusion structure) among which support- and attack-relations hold. This approach addresses the observation that some theses in a debate can be better justified than others and thus fixes a shortcoming of a theory of defeasible reasoning which applies the bivalence principle to argument evaluations by (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Defeasible Logic Programming: DeLP-Servers, Contextual Queries, and Explanations for Answers.Alejandro J. García & Guillermo R. Simari - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (1):63-88.
    Argumentation represents a way of reasoning over a knowledge base containing possibly incomplete and/or inconsistent information, to obtain useful conclusions. As a reasoning mechanism, the way an argumentation reasoning engine reaches these conclusions resembles the cognitive process that humans follow to analyze their beliefs; thus, unlike other computationally reasoning systems, argumentation offers an intellectually friendly alternative to other defeasible reasoning systems. LogicProgrammingisacomputationalparadigmthathasproducedcompu- tationallyattractivesystemswithremarkablesuccessinmanyapplications. Merging ideas from both areas, Defeasible Logic Programming offers a computational reasoning system that uses an argumentation engine (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • A Neural Cognitive Model of Argumentation with Application to Legal Inference and Decision Making.Artur S. D'Avila Garcez, Dov M. Gabbay & Luis C. Lamb - 2014 - Journal of Applied Logic 12 (2):109-127.
    Formal models of argumentation have been investigated in several areas, from multi-agent systems and artificial intelligence (AI) to decision making, philosophy and law. In artificial intelligence, logic-based models have been the standard for the representation of argumentative reasoning. More recently, the standard logic-based models have been shown equivalent to standard connectionist models. This has created a new line of research where (i) neural networks can be used as a parallel computational model for argumentation and (ii) neural networks can be used (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation