12,603 Hits in 5.6 sec

More on Presumptions and Burdens of Proof

Henry Prakken, Giovanni Sartor
2008 Social Science Research Network  
In the jurisprudential literature different accounts of this issue have been given: some have argued that a presumption is nullified by counterarguments while others have maintained that this gives presumptions  ...  This paper extends our previous logical analysis of presumptions and burden of proof by studying the force of a presumption once counterevidence has been offered.  ...  The strength of the proof standard is implicit in the reasons for moving or not moving the exclusion attack.  ... 
doi:10.2139/ssrn.1317348 fatcat:3qfuinahjnclxphdpqdpgb7zwa

Informalizing Formal Logic

Antonis Kakas
2019 Informal Logic  
This paper presents a way in which formal logic can be understood and reformulated in terms of argumentation that can help us unify formal and informal reasoning.  ...  Classical deductive reasoning will be expressed entirely in terms of notions and concepts from argumentation so that formal logical entailment is equivalently captured via the arguments that win between  ...  Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Francesca Toni, Paolo Mancarella and Loizos Michael for their continued collaboration on argumentation on which much of this paper rests.  ... 
doi:10.22329/il.v39i2.5169 fatcat:qnq7cctuhbcmlp3y5qupvd5bei

Explaining Argumentation over Alignment Agreements

Rouaa Wannous, Cassia Trojahn
2013 2013 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence (WI) and Intelligent Agent Technologies (IAT)  
This is an author-deposited version published in : Eprints ID : 12954 To link to this article : Abstract-Argumentation frameworks have been used as tools for reconciliating  ...  This paper presents a mechanism for providing explanations on the way agreed alignments are established. Our mechanism is based on tracing each step of the argumentation process.  ...  They proposed a dialectical proof based explanation, based on Dung's framework, for explaining the acceptability of arguments.  ... 
doi:10.1109/wi-iat.2013.94 dblp:conf/iat/WannousT13 fatcat:lhdzepclojglxlx7bicelsfwvu

A taxonomy of argumentation models used for knowledge representation

Jamal Bentahar, Bernard Moulin, Micheline Bélanger
2010 Artificial Intelligence Review  
In this paper, we propose such a conceptual framework, based on taxonomy of the most important argumentation models, approaches and systems found in the literature.  ...  Such a framework would be very useful 2 especially for researchers and practitioners who want to select appropriate argumentation models or techniques to be incorporated in new software systems with argumentation  ...  Acknowledgements This work has been carried out with the partial support of the Canadian National Defence  ... 
doi:10.1007/s10462-010-9154-1 fatcat:fwoetgguzbczpn5kor6k2bm6dm

Considering Carneades as a Framework for Informal Logic: A Reply to Walton and Gordon

Marcin Selinger, Marcin Koszowy
2016 Informal Logic  
Since their proposal is based on employing the Carneades Argumentation System (CAS), this paper aims at answering two questions: what are main benefits of applying CAS as means for formalizing informal  ...  logic, and what are possible extensions of Walton and Gordon's research program and modifications in employing CAS?  ...  We also gratefully acknowledge the support of the Polish National Science Centre for Marcin Koszowy under grant 2011/03/ B/HS1/04559.  ... 
doi:10.22329/il.v36i2.4423 fatcat:ibymyuzfdzfmfhz4f2d2mdpmk4

Classical logic, argument and dialectic

M. D'Agostino, S. Modgil
2018 Artificial Intelligence  
However, features of existing formalisations of classical logic argumentation (Cl-Arg) that ensure satisfaction of rationality postulates, preclude applications of Cl-Arg that account for real-world dialectical  ...  move whereby arguments' premises are shown to be inconsistent, and avoiding the foreign commitment problem that arises in dialogical applications; 2) provide an account of Cl-Arg suitable for real-world  ...  principle be enforceable by the proof system used for constructing arguments.  ... 
doi:10.1016/j.artint.2018.05.003 fatcat:gq7d6g5y5zhj7h54uducepixsa

Quantitative Argumentation Debates with Votes for Opinion Polling [chapter]

Antonio Rago, Francesca Toni
2017 Lecture Notes in Computer Science  
Our method relies upon Quantitative Argumentation Debate for Voting (QuAD-V) frameworks, which extend QuAD frameworks (a form of bipolar argumentation frameworks in which arguments have an intrinsic strength  ...  Argumentation, as understood in AI, can be used to evaluate opinions in dialectical exchanges, transparently articulating the reasoning behind the opinions.  ...  To the best of our knowledge, no existing opinion polling system/method takes into account evaluation of the dialectical strength of the opinions given voters' responses.  ... 
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69131-2_22 fatcat:bvokxidwqjcffogtbrjgcrfr7y

A formal model of adjudication dialogues

Henry Prakken
2008 Artificial Intelligence and Law  
The model allows for explicit decisions on admissibility of evidence and burden of proof by the adjudicator in the argumentation phase.  ...  Existing AI & law models of legal dialogues and argumentation-theoretic models of persuasion are extended with a neutral third party, to give a more realistic account of the adjudicator's role in legal  ...  I thank Tom Gordon, Chris Reed, Giovanni Sartor, Burkhard Schäfer and Doug Walton for useful discussions on the various aspects of burden of proof.  ... 
doi:10.1007/s10506-008-9066-4 fatcat:dodkaqljerdhfftotv2blznazy

On Degrees of Justification

Gregor Betz
2011 Erkenntnis: An International Journal of Scientific Philosophy  
This paper gives an explication of our intuitive notion of strength of justification in a controversial debate.  ...  It defines a thesis' degree of justification within the bipolar argumentation framework of the theory of dialectical structures as the ratio of coherently adoptable positions according to which that thesis  ...  which both occur in τ while neither p nor ¬p occurs in τ i , 2. for every conclusion p of a τ i -invalid argument which neither attacks nor supports another argument in τ i , and 3. for every red circle  ... 
doi:10.1007/s10670-011-9314-y fatcat:3lzvevgfdjae5bgrlyfv4qqgqq

Argumentation structures that integrate dialectical and non-dialectical reasoning

2001 Knowledge engineering review (Print)  
For example, a variety of logics have been developed to represent argumentation in the context of a dialectical situation such as a dialogue.  ...  Systems based on our approach have been developed in family law, refugee law, determining eligibility for government legal aid, copyright law and e-tourism.  ...  Their main objective was to develop a system that could model the burden of proof concept in legal reasoning.  ... 
doi:10.1017/s0269888901000248 fatcat:vrj2odfvibaezbjni6wfah6ggq

The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof

Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken, Douglas Walton
2007 Artificial Intelligence  
Our approach allows the burden of proof for a premise to be assigned to a different party than the one who has the burden of proving the conclusion of the argument, and also to change the burden of proof  ...  Useful for modeling legal dialogues, the burden of production and burden of persuasion can be handled separately, with a different responsible party and applicable proof standard for each.  ...  Doug Walton was supported by a grant (410-2005-0398) from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for a project on Dialogue Systems for Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and  ... 
doi:10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.010 fatcat:bynufnquxzab5lfraqj6pvdnee

Dynamics of Knowledge in DeLP through Argument Theory Change [article]

Martín O. Moguillansky, Nicolás D. Rotstein, Marcelo A. Falappa, Alejandro J. García, Guillermo R. Simari
2011 arXiv   pre-print
Argument Theory Change (ATC) studies certain aspects of belief revision in order to make them suitable for abstract argumentation systems.  ...  The objective of our proposal is to define prioritized argument revision operators \'a la ATC for de.l.p.s, in such a way that the newly inserted argument ends up undefeated after the revision, thus warranting  ...  A strong restriction is posed: the newly added argument must have at most one interaction (via attack) with an argument in the system.  ... 
arXiv:1111.6883v1 fatcat:766eazydezbhney7wsgryxbx5q

An informant-based approach to argument strength in Defeasible Logic Programming

Andrea Cohen, Sebastian Gottifredi, Luciano H. Tamargo, Alejandro J. García, Guillermo R. Simari
2020 Argument & Computation  
In other words, the strength of an argument may vary from one context to another, as it will be determined by comparison to its attacking arguments (respectively, the arguments it attacks).  ...  Moreover, we consider that the strength of an argument is not absolute, but it is relative to the resolution of the conflicts the argument is involved in.  ...  Acknowledgements We would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful and insightful comments on the previous versions of this paper.  ... 
doi:10.3233/aac-200902 fatcat:rqt3x2koujcn3higbcl5py3dke

Collective Decision-Making Process to Compose Divergent Interests and Perspectives

Maxime Morge
2005 Artificial Intelligence and Law  
This framework bounds a dialectics system in which argumentative agents play and arbitrate to reach an agreement.  ...  For this purpose, we propose an argumentation-based reasoning to manage the conflicts between arguments having different strengths for different agents.  ...  Since the agents individually evaluate the strength of arguments, an agent can ignore the attack of an argument over another argument.  ... 
doi:10.1007/s10506-006-9008-y fatcat:ndm3zq4lavh6za3i5sx5mfyggi

Formalisation and logical properties of the maximal ideal recursive semantics for weighted defeasible logic programming

Teresa Alsinet, Ramón Béjar, Lluís Godo, Francesc Guitart
2015 Journal of experimental and theoretical artificial intelligence (Print)  
Recently in [2], we have proposed a new semantics for P-DeLP based on a general notion of collective (non-binary) conflict among arguments and on the claim that the acceptance of an argument should imply  ...  A relevant example of this last kind of tools is Parmenides [14] , that follows an structured approach to propose arguments in a debate and uses valued abstract argumentation frameworks [15] for analyzing  ...  In P-DeLP warranted conclusions are justifiable conclusions which remain undefeated after an exhaustive dialectical analysis of all possible arguments for an against and only binary attacks or defeat relations  ... 
doi:10.1080/0952813x.2015.1024490 fatcat:kzstlkjyd5g6vajm2fmymga6p4
« Previous Showing results 1 — 15 out of 12,603 results