Year:

  1.  5
    Inferences and Illocutions.David Botting - 2015 - Argument and Computation 6 (3):246-264.
    In several papers Budzynska and Reed have argued that inferences should be ‘anchored’ to relations between utterances rather than to utterances themselves; then, by appeal to what they call ‘dialogue glue', these relations are somehow reified as ‘implicit’ speech-acts. In this paper I will argue that this is a mistake caused by confusion over different ways an illocution can be relational and that there can be no such thing as implicit speech-acts as they describe them, and so the speech-act that (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  1
    Argumentative Meanings and Their Stylistic Configurations in Clinical Research Publications.Olga L. Gladkova, Chrysanne DiMarco & Randy Allen Harris - 2015 - Argument and Computation 6 (3):310-346.
    The paper reports on the results of an exploratory study into the topical organisation and stylistic features of argumentation in a corpus of ophthalmic clinical research papers. The study responds to the need for systematised and generalisable argumentation models in knowledge-intensive fields. We present here a schematised superstructure of the arguments from the corpus, charting the configurations of stylistic features, which signal the elements of this superstructure, epistemic topoi. We pay special attention to the role of lexical categories in the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  4
    Reasoning About Actions and Change in Argumentation.E. Hadjisoteriou & A. Kakas - 2015 - Argument and Computation 6 (3):265-291.
    This paper studies how logic-based reasoning about actions and change with its problems of temporal projection and qualification can be formalised in terms of argumentation. In particular, we extend earlier work of translating the language for RAC into a logic-based argumentation framework, by introducing new types of arguments for backward persistence and persistence from observations. This forms a conservative extension of the language that gives a semantic meaning to domains that cannot be interpreted under thus addressing further the frame and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  3
    Formal Reconciliatory Dialogue Based on Shift From Forward to Backward Deliberation †.Hiroyuki Kido & Federico Cerutti - 2015 - Argument and Computation 6 (3):292-309.
    Desire conflicts arise in several real-world contexts. In this paper, we propose a mixed deliberation dialogue for reconciliation. A mixed deliberation dialogue is defined as a combination of forward and backward deliberation dialogues with respective goals which are subordinate and superordinate desires of a given desire. This research and the introduction of mixed deliberation dialogue have been motivated by Kowalski and Toni's reconciliatory scenario. We show that an instantiation of a mixed deliberation dialogue implements key parts of Kowalski and Toni's (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  7
    Reasoning in Abstract Dialectical Frameworks Using Quantified Boolean Formulas.Martin Diller, Johannes Peter Wallner & Stefan Woltran - 2015 - Argument and Computation 6 (2):149-177.
    dialectical frameworks constitute a recent and powerful generalisation of Dung's argumentation frameworks, where the relationship between the arguments can be specified via Boolean formulas. Recent results have shown that this enhancement comes with the price of higher complexity compared to AFs. In fact, acceptance problems in the world of ADFs can be hard even for the third level of the polynomial hierarchy. In order to implement reasoning problems on ADFs, systems for quantified Boolean formulas thus are suitable engines to be (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  3
    Probabilistic Abstract Argumentation: An Investigation with Boltzmann Machines.Régis Riveret, Dimitrios Korkinof, Moez Draief & Jeremy Pitt - 2015 - Argument and Computation 6 (2):178-218.
    Probabilistic argumentation and neuro-argumentative systems offer new computational perspectives for the theory and applications of argumentation, but their principled construction involves two entangled problems. On the one hand, probabilistic argumentation aims at combining the quantitative uncertainty addressed by probability theory with the qualitative uncertainty of argumentation, but probabilistic dependences amongst arguments as well as learning are usually neglected. On the other hand, neuro-argumentative systems offer the opportunity to couple the computational advantages of learning and massive parallel computation from neural networks (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  9
    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  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  6
    Automatic Evaluation of Design Alternatives with Quantitative Argumentation.Pietro Baroni, Marco Romano, Francesca Toni, Marco Aurisicchio & Giorgio Bertanza - 2015 - Argument and Computation 6 (1):24-49.
    This paper presents a novel argumentation framework to support Issue-Based Information System style debates on design alternatives, by providing an automatic quantitative evaluation of the positions put forward. It also identifies several formal properties of the proposed quantitative argumentation framework and compares it with existing non-numerical abstract argumentation formalisms. Finally, the paper describes the integration of the proposed approach within the design Visual Understanding Environment software tool along with three case studies in engineering design. The case studies show the potential (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  4
    Applications of Logical Approaches to Argumentation.João Leite, Tran Cao Son, Paolo Torroni & Stefan Woltran - 2015 - Argument and Computation 6 (1):1-2.
  10.  3
    Context-Aware Reconfiguration of Large-Scale Surveillance Systems: Argumentative Approach.Peter Novák & Cees Witteveen - 2015 - Argument and Computation 6 (1):3-23.
    The Metis research project aims at supporting maritime safety and security by facilitating continuous monitoring of vessels in national coastal waters and prevention of phenomena, such as vessel collisions, environmental hazard, or detection of malicious intents, such as smuggling. Surveillance systems such as Metis typically comprise a number of heterogeneous information sources and information aggregators. Among the main problems of their deployment lies their scalability with respect to a potentially large number of monitored entities. One of the solutions to the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  3
    Senses of ‘Argument’ in Instantiated Argumentation Frameworks.Adam Wyner, Trevor Bench-Capon, Paul Dunne & Federico Cerutti - 2015 - Argument and Computation 6 (1):50-72.
    Argumentation Frameworks provide a fruitful basis for exploring issues of defeasible reasoning. Their power largely derives from the abstract nature of the arguments within the framework, where arguments are atomic nodes in an undifferentiated relation of attack. This abstraction conceals different senses of argument, namely a single-step reason to a claim, a series of reasoning steps to a single claim, and reasoning steps for and against a claim. Concrete instantiations encounter difficulties and complexities as a result of conflating these senses. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
 Previous issues
  
Next issues