Relevance: communication and cognition
Relevance: communication and cognition
Semantics and complexity of abduction from default theories
Artificial Intelligence
ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)
A logic-based theory of deductive arguments
Artificial Intelligence
A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
Management of Preferences in Assumption-Based Reasoning
IPMU '92 Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems: Advanced Methods in Artificial Intelligence
Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming
Practical first-order argumentation
AAAI'05 Proceedings of the 20th national conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 2
Using enthymemes in an inquiry dialogue system
Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems - Volume 1
Contextual Extension with Concept Maps in the Argument Interchange Format
Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems
Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties
Artificial Intelligence
Handling enthymemes in time-limited persuasion dialogs
SUM'11 Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Scalable uncertainty management
Towards pragmatic argumentative agents within a fuzzy description logic framework
ArgMAS'10 Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems
A probabilistic approach to modelling uncertain logical arguments
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
DebateWEL: an interface for debating with enthymemes and logical formulas
JELIA'12 Proceedings of the 13th European conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence
Probabilistic qualification of attack in abstract argumentation
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
There are a number of frameworks for modelling argumentation in logic. They incorporate a formal representation of individual arguments and techniques for comparing conflicting arguments. A common assumption for logic-based argumentation is that an argument is a pair (Φ, α) where Φ is minimal subset of the knowledgebase such that Φ is consistent and Φ entails the claim α. However, real arguments (i.e. arguments presented by humans) usually do not have enough explicitly presented premises for the entailment of the claim. This is because there is some common knowledge that can be assumed by a proponent of an argument and the recipient of it. This allows the proponent of an argument to encode an argument into a real argument by ignoring the common knowledge, and it allows a recipient of a real argument to decode it into an argument by drawing on the common knowledge. If both the proponent and recipient use the same common knowledge, then this process is straightforward. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and raises the need for an approximation of the notion of an argument for the recipient to cope with the disparities between the different views on what constitutes common knowledge.