Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. ICAIL Doctoral Consortium, Montreal 2019.Michał Araszkiewicz, Ilaria Angela Amantea, Saurabh Chakravarty, Robert van Doesburg, Maria Dymitruk, Marie Garin, Leilani Gilpin, Daphne Odekerken & Seyedeh Sajedeh Salehi - 2020 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 28 (2):267-280.
    This is a report on the Doctoral Consortium co-located with the 17th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law in Montreal.
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • In Memoriam Douglas N. Walton: The Influence of Doug Walton on AI and Law.Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon, Floris Bex, Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken, Giovanni Sartor & Bart Verheij - 2020 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 28 (3):281-326.
    Doug Walton, who died in January 2020, was a prolific author whose work in informal logic and argumentation had a profound influence on Artificial Intelligence, including Artificial Intelligence and Law. He was also very interested in interdisciplinary work, and a frequent and generous collaborator. In this paper seven leading researchers in AI and Law, all past programme chairs of the International Conference on AI and Law who have worked with him, describe his influence on their work.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • 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 (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Conductive Arguments and the ‘Inference to the Best Explanation’.Dean Goorden & Thomas Fischer - unknown
    I will demonstrate that conductive arguments are found in the inference to the best explana-tion as it is used in science. Conductive arguments, I argue, operate on two levels: the first is in the con-struction of hypotheses; the second is through the competition of hypotheses. By constructing arguments based on observations of facts, all possible factors are taken into account and a judgment is made based on our weighing of considerations: conductive argumentation.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Douglas Walton: Argument Evaluation and Evidence: Springer, 2016, 286 Pp. [REVIEW]Marcello Di Bello & Bart Verheij - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (2):301-307.
  • A Plea for Ecological Argument Technologies.Fabio Paglieri - 2017 - Philosophy and Technology 30 (2):209-238.
    In spite of significant research efforts, argument technologies do not seem poised to scale up as much as most commentators would hope or even predict. In this paper, I discuss what obstacles bar the way to more widespread success of argument technologies and venture some suggestions on how to circumvent such difficulties: doing so will require a significant shift in how this research area is typically understood and practiced. I begin by exploring a much broader yet closely related question: To (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • An Arugmentation Framework for Contested Cases of Statutory Interpertation.Douglas Walton, Giovanni Sartor & Fabrizio Macagno - 2016 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 24 (1):51-91.
    This paper proposes an argumentation-based procedure for legal interpretation, by reinterpreting the traditional canons of textual interpretation in terms of argumentation schemes, which are then classified, formalized, and represented through argument visualization and evaluation tools. The problem of statutory interpretation is framed as one of weighing contested interpretations as pro and con arguments. The paper builds an interpretation procedure by formulating a set of argumentation schemes that can be used to comparatively evaluate the types of arguments used in cases of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • 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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Some Artificial Intelligence Tools for Argument Evaluation: An Introduction.Douglas Walton - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (3):317-340.
    Even though tools for identifying and analyzing arguments are now in wide use in the field of argumentation studies, so far there is a paucity of resources for evaluating real arguments, aside from using deductive logic or Bayesian rules that apply to inductive arguments. In this paper it is shown that recent developments in artificial intelligence in the area of computational systems for modeling defeasible argumentation reveal a different approach that is currently making interesting progress. It is shown how these (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • 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  
  • A Hybrid Formal Theory of Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence.Floris J. Bex, Peter J. van Koppen, Henry Prakken & Bart Verheij - 2010 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):123-152.
    This paper presents a theory of reasoning with evidence in order to determine the facts in a criminal case. The focus is on the process of proof, in which the facts of the case are determined, rather than on related legal issues, such as the admissibility of evidence. In the literature, two approaches to reasoning with evidence can be distinguished, one argument-based and one story-based. In an argument-based approach to reasoning with evidence, the reasons for and against the occurrence of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 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 (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • The Modular Logic of Private International Law.Phan Minh Dung & Giovanni Sartor - 2011 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 19 (2-3):233-261.
    We provide a logical analysis of private international law, a rather esoteric, but increasingly important, domain of the law. Private international law addresses overlaps and conflicts between legal systems by distributing cases between the authorities of such systems (jurisdiction) and establishing what rules these authorities have to apply to each case (choice of law). A formal model of the resulting interactions between legal systems is proposed based on modular argumentation. It is argued that this model may also be useful for (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Legal Stories and the Process of Proof.Floris Bex & Bart Verheij - 2013 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 21 (3):253-278.
    In this paper, we continue our research on a hybrid narrative-argumentative approach to evidential reasoning in the law by showing the interaction between factual reasoning (providing a proof for ‘what happened’ in a case) and legal reasoning (making a decision based on the proof). First we extend the hybrid theory by making the connection with reasoning towards legal consequences. We then emphasise the role of legal stories (as opposed to the factual stories of the hybrid theory). Legal stories provide a (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Probabilistic Rule-Based Argumentation for Norm-Governed Learning Agents.Régis Riveret, Antonino Rotolo & Giovanni Sartor - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (4):383-420.
    This paper proposes an approach to investigate norm-governed learning agents which combines a logic-based formalism with an equation-based counterpart. This dual formalism enables us to describe the reasoning of such agents and their interactions using argumentation, and, at the same time, to capture systemic features using equations. The approach is applied to norm emergence and internalisation in systems of learning agents. The logical formalism is rooted into a probabilistic defeasible logic instantiating Dung’s argumentation framework. Rules of this logic are attached (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of the International Conference on AI and Law. [REVIEW]Trevor Bench-Capon, Michał Araszkiewicz, Kevin Ashley, Katie Atkinson, Floris Bex, Filipe Borges, Daniele Bourcier, Paul Bourgine, Jack G. Conrad, Enrico Francesconi, Thomas F. Gordon, Guido Governatori, Jochen L. Leidner, David D. Lewis, Ronald P. Loui, L. Thorne McCarty, Henry Prakken, Frank Schilder, Erich Schweighofer, Paul Thompson, Alex Tyrrell, Bart Verheij, Douglas N. Walton & Adam Z. Wyner - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (3):215-319.
    We provide a retrospective of 25 years of the International Conference on AI and Law, which was first held in 1987. Fifty papers have been selected from the thirteen conferences and each of them is described in a short subsection individually written by one of the 24 authors. These subsections attempt to place the paper discussed in the context of the development of AI and Law, while often offering some personal reactions and reflections. As a whole, the subsections build into (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Rationality and Maximal Consistent Sets for a Fragment of ASPIC + Without Undercut.Jesse Heyninck & Christian Straßer - forthcoming - Argument and Computation:1-45.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Witness Impeachment in Cross-Examination Using Ad Hominem Argumentation.Douglas Walton - 2018 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 55 (1):93-114.
    This paper combines methods of argumentation theory and artificial intelligence to extend existing work on the dialectical structure of crossexamination. The existing method used conflict diagrams to search for inconsistent statements in the testimony of a witness. This paper extends the method by using the inconsistency of commitments to draw an inference by the ad hominem argumentation scheme to the conclusion that the testimony is unreliable because of the bad ethical character for veracity of the witness.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • 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  
  • Before and After Dung: Argumentation in AI and Law.T. J. M. Bench-Capon - 2020 - Argument and Computation 11 (1-2):221-238.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Recognizing Argument Types and Adding Missing Reasons.Christoph Lumer - 2019 - In Bart J. Garssen, David Godden, Gordon Mitchell & Jean Wagemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). [Amsterdam, July 3-6, 2018.]. Amsterdam (Netherlands): pp. 769-777.
    The article develops and justifies, on the basis of the epistemological argumentation theory, two central pieces of the theory of evaluative argumentation interpretation: 1. criteria for recognizing argument types and 2. rules for adding reasons to create ideal arguments. Ad 1: The criteria for identifying argument types are a selection of essential elements from the definitions of the respective argument types. Ad 2: After presenting the general principles for adding reasons (benevolence, authenticity, immanence, optimization), heuristics are proposed for finding missing (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Basic Slippery Slope Argument.Douglas Walton - 2015 - Informal Logic 35 (3):273-311.
    Although studies have yielded a detailed taxonomy of types of slippery slope arguments, they have failed to identify a basic argumentation scheme that applies to all. Therefore, there is no way of telling whether a given argument is a slippery slope argument or not. This paper solves the problem by providing a basic argumentation scheme. The scheme is shown to fit a clear and easily comprehensible example of a slippery slope argument that strongly appears to be reasonable, something that has (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Logical Limits of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks.Leila Amgoud & Philippe Besnard - 2013 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 23 (3):229 - 267.
    Dung?s (1995) argumentation framework takes as input two abstract entities: a set of arguments and a binary relation encoding attacks between these arguments. It returns acceptable sets of arguments, called extensions, w.r.t. a given semantics. While the abstract nature of this setting is seen as a great advantage, it induces a big gap with the application that it is used to. This raises some questions about the compatibility of the setting with a logical formalism (i.e., whether it is possible to (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Teleological Justification of Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton & Giovanni Sartor - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):111-142.
    Argumentation schemes are forms of reasoning that are fallible but correctable within a self-correcting framework. Their use provides a basis for taking rational action or for reasonably accepting a conclusion as a tentative hypothesis, but they are not deductively valid. We argue that teleological reasoning can provide the basis for justifying the use of argument schemes both in monological and dialogical reasoning. We consider how such a teleological justification, besides being inspired by the aim of directing a bounded cognizer to (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Correspondence Between Th Pragma-Dialectical Disussion Model and the Argument Interchange Format.Jacky Visser, Floris Bex, Chris Reed & Bart Garssen - 2011 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 23 (36).
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Argumentation, R. Pavilionis's Meaning Continuum and The Kitchen Debate.Elena Lisanyuk - 2015 - Problemos 88:95.
    In this paper, I propose a logical-cognitive approach to argumentation and advocate an idea that argumentation presupposes that intelligent agents engaged in it are cognitively diverse. My approach to argumentation allows drawing distinctions between justification, conviction and persuasion as its different kinds. In justification agents seek to verify weak or strong coherency of an agent’s position in a dialogue. In conviction they argue to modify their partner’s position by means of demonstrating weak or strong cogency of their positions before a (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Commentary on Patrick Bondy, “Bias in Legitimate Ad Hominem Arguments”.Andrew Aberdein - 2016 - Argumentation, Objectivity and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18–21, 2016.
  • Defining Marriage: Classification, Interpretation, and Definitional Disputes.Fabrizio Macagno - 2016 - Informal Logic 36 (3):309-332.
    The classification of a state of affairs under a legal category can be considered as a kind of con- densed decision that can be made explicit, analyzed, and assessed us- ing argumentation schemes. In this paper, the controversial conflict of opinions concerning the nature of “marriage” in Obergefell v. Hodges is analyzed pointing out the dialecti- cal strategies used for addressing the interpretive doubts. The dispute about the same-sex couples’ right to marry hides a much deeper disa- greement not only (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • A Natural Language Bipolar Argumentation Approach to Support Users in Online Debate Interactions†.Elena Cabrio & Serena Villata - 2013 - Argument and Computation 4 (3):209-230.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • An Appreciation of John Pollock's Work on the Computational Study of Argument.Henry Prakken & John Horty - 2012 - Argument and Computation 3 (1):1 - 19.
    John Pollock (1940?2009) was an influential American philosopher who made important contributions to various fields, including epistemology and cognitive science. In the last 25 years of his life, he also contributed to the computational study of defeasible reasoning and practical cognition in artificial intelligence. He developed one of the first formal systems for argumentation-based inference and he put many issues on the research agenda that are still relevant for the argumentation community today. This paper presents an appreciation of Pollock's work (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Using Argument Schemes for Hypothetical Reasoning in Law.Trevor Bench-Capon & Henry Prakken - 2010 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):153-174.
    This paper studies the use of hypothetical and value-based reasoning in US Supreme-Court cases concerning the United States Fourth Amendment. Drawing upon formal AI & Law models of legal argument a semi-formal reconstruction is given of parts of the Carney case, which has been studied previously in AI & law research on case-based reasoning. As part of the reconstruction, a semi-formal proposal is made for extending the formal AI & Law models with forms of metalevel reasoning in several argument schemes. (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • On a Razor's Edge: Evaluating Arguments From Expert Opinion.Douglas Walton - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (2-3):139-159.
    This paper takes an argumentation approach to find the place of trust in a method for evaluating arguments from expert opinion. The method uses the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion along with its matching set of critical questions. It shows how to use this scheme in three formal computational argumentation models that provide tools to analyse and evaluate instances of argument from expert opinion. The paper uses several examples to illustrate the use of these tools. A conclusion of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 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 (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • A Functional Perspective on Argumentation Schemes.Adam Wyner - 2016 - Argument and Computation 7 (2-3):113-133.
  • 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.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Evidential Reasoning.Marcello Di Bello & Bart Verheij - 2018 - In G. Bongiovanni, G. Postema, A. Rotolo, G. Sartor, C. Valentini & D. Walton (eds.), Handbook in Legal Reasoning and Argumentation. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. pp. 447-493.
    The primary aim of this chapter is to explain the nature of evidential reasoning, the characteristic difficulties encountered, and the tools to address these difficulties. Our focus is on evidential reasoning in criminal cases. There is an extensive scholarly literature on these topics, and it is a secondary aim of the chapter to provide readers the means to find their way in historical and ongoing debates.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • A Generalized Proof-Theoretic Approach to Logical Argumentation Based on Hypersequents.AnneMarie Borg, Christian Straßer & Ofer Arieli - forthcoming - Studia Logica:1-72.
    In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modelling of defeasible reasoning by means of logic-based argumentation and the induced entailment relations. These structures are an extension of sequent-based argumentation frameworks, in which arguments and the attack relations among them are expressed not only by Gentzen-style sequents, but by more general expressions, called hypersequents. This generalization allows us to overcome some of the known weaknesses of logical argumentation frameworks and to prove several desirable properties of the entailments that are (...)
    Direct download (2 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  
  • Reconstructing Popov V. Hayashi in a Framework for Argumentation with Structured Arguments and Dungean Semantics.Henry Prakken - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1):57-82.
    In this article the argumentation structure of the court’s decision in the Popov v. Hayashi case is formalised in Prakken’s (Argument Comput 1:93–124; 2010) abstract framework for argument-based inference with structured arguments. In this framework, arguments are inference trees formed by applying two kinds of inference rules, strict and defeasible rules. Arguments can be attacked in three ways: attacking a premise, attacking a conclusion and attacking an inference. To resolve such conflicts, preferences may be used, which leads to three corresponding (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Introduction to Special Issue on Modelling Popov V. Hayashi.Katie Atkinson - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1):1-14.
  • Building Bayesian Networks for Legal Evidence with Narratives: A Case Study Evaluation.Charlotte S. Vlek, Henry Prakken, Silja Renooij & Bart Verheij - 2014 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 22 (4):375-421.
    In a criminal trial, evidence is used to draw conclusions about what happened concerning a supposed crime. Traditionally, the three main approaches to modeling reasoning with evidence are argumentative, narrative and probabilistic approaches. Integrating these three approaches could arguably enhance the communication between an expert and a judge or jury. In previous work, techniques were proposed to represent narratives in a Bayesian network and to use narratives as a basis for systematizing the construction of a Bayesian network for a legal (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • A Methodology for Designing Systems to Reason with Legal Cases Using Abstract Dialectical Frameworks.Latifa Al-Abdulkarim, Katie Atkinson & Trevor Bench-Capon - 2016 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 24 (1):1-49.
    This paper presents a methodology to design and implement programs intended to decide cases, described as sets of factors, according to a theory of a particular domain based on a set of precedent cases relating to that domain. We useDialectical Frameworks, a recent development in AI knowledge representation, as the central feature of our design method. ADFs will play a role akin to that played by Entity–Relationship models in the design of database systems. First, we explain how the factor hierarchy (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • 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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Complete Extensions in Argumentation Coincide with 3-Valued Stable Models in Logic Programming.Yining Wu, Martin Caminada & Dov M. Gabbay - 2009 - Studia Logica 93 (2):383-403.
    In this paper, we prove the correspondence between complete extensions in abstract argumentation and 3-valued stable models in logic programming. This result is in line with earlier work of [6] that identified the correspondence between the grounded extension in abstract argumentation and the well-founded model in logic programming, as well as between the stable extensions in abstract argumentation and the stable models in logic programming.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Working on the Argument Pipeline: Through Flow Issues Between Natural Language Argument, Instantiated Arguments, and Argumentation Frameworks.Adam Wyner, Tom van Engers & Anthony Hunter - 2016 - Argument and Computation 7 (1):69-89.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • An Analysis of Critical-Link Semantics with Variable Degrees of Justification.Bin Wei & Henry Prakken - 2016 - Argument and Computation 7 (1):35-53.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Combining Explanation and Argumentation in Dialogue.Floris Bex & Douglas Walton - 2016 - Argument and Computation 7 (1):55-68.
  • Noise Induced Hearing Loss: Building an Application Using the ANGELIC Methodology.Latifa Al-Abdulkarim, Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon, Stuart Whittle, Rob Williams & Catriona Wolfenden - 2018 - Argument and Computation 10 (1):5-22.
  • Representing Argumentation Schemes with Constraint Handling Rules.Thomas F. Gordon, Horst Friedrich & Douglas Walton - 2018 - Argument and Computation 9 (2):91-119.
    We present a high-level declarative programming language for representing argumentation schemes, where schemes represented in this language can be easily validated by domain experts, including developers of argumentation schemes in informal logic and philosophy, and serve as executable specifications for automatically constructing arguments, when applied to a set of assumptions. This new rule language for representing argumentation schemes is validated by using it to represent twenty representative argumentation schemes.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • States, Goals and Values: Revisiting Practical Reasoning.Katie Atkinson & Trevor Bench-Capon - 2016 - Argument and Computation 7 (2-3):135-154.