Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
Javascript must be enabled to continue!
On ASPIC
View through CrossRef
Dung-like argumentation framework ASPIC+and Defeasible Logic (DL) arebothwell-studiedrule-basedformalismsfordefeasiblereasoning.Wecomparethe two frameworks and establish a linkage between an instantiation of ASPIC+and a DL variant, which leads to a better understanding and cross-fertilization – in particular our work sheds light on features such as ambiguity propagating/blocking, team defeat and strict rules for argumentation, while emphasizing the argumentation-theoretic features of DL.
Title: On ASPIC
Description:
Dung-like argumentation framework ASPIC+and Defeasible Logic (DL) arebothwell-studiedrule-basedformalismsfordefeasiblereasoning.
Wecomparethe two frameworks and establish a linkage between an instantiation of ASPIC+and a DL variant, which leads to a better understanding and cross-fertilization – in particular our work sheds light on features such as ambiguity propagating/blocking, team defeat and strict rules for argumentation, while emphasizing the argumentation-theoretic features of DL.
Related Results
Clarifying some misconceptions on the ASPIC
Clarifying some misconceptions on the ASPIC
The ASPIC+framework is a general framework for argumentation-based inference which aims to unifies two research strands: those in which arguments can only be attacked on their defe...
An Argumentation Workflow for Reasoning in Ontology Based Data Access
An Argumentation Workflow for Reasoning in Ontology Based Data Access
In this paper we demonstrate how to benefit from structured argumentation frameworks and their implementations to provide for reasoning capabilities of Ontology Based Data Access s...
Reasoning about Preferences in Structured Extended Argumentation Frameworks
Reasoning about Preferences in Structured Extended Argumentation Frameworks
This paper combines two recent extensions of Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks in order to define an abstract formalism for reasoning about preferences in structured argumen...
Preferences and Unrestricted Rebut
Preferences and Unrestricted Rebut
The work of Caminada & Amgoud presents two possible ways of satisfying the rationality postulates: one using restricted rebut, and one using unrestricted rebut. Subsequent ...
TOAST: Online ASPIC
TOAST: Online ASPIC
In this paper, we present TOAST, a system that implements the ASPIC+framework. TOAST accepts a knowledge base and rule set with associated preference and contrariness information, ...
Argumentation Schemes for Reasoning about Factors with Dimensions
Argumentation Schemes for Reasoning about Factors with Dimensions
In previous work we presented argumentation schemes to capture the CATO and value based theory construction approaches to reasoning with legal cases with factors. We formalised the...
An ASPIC-based legal argumentation framework for deontic reasoning
An ASPIC-based legal argumentation framework for deontic reasoning
In the last years, argumentation theory has been exploited to reason about norms, argue about enforced obligations and permissions, and establish the validity of norms seen as argu...
On modelling burdens and standards of proof in structured argumentation
On modelling burdens and standards of proof in structured argumentation
A formal model is proposed of argumentation with burdens and standards of proof, overcoming shortcomings of earlier work. The model is based on a distinction between default and in...