An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments

By Henry Prakken. Argument Comput., 2010

804 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b86c260c1459ac7f446a6621f5f9e8385d111419

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

Citations in the corpus

Some Artificial Intelligence Tools for Argument Evaluation: An Introduction (2015, neutral): “K consists of a set of propositions that can be used as premises that can be combined with the inference rules to generate arguments (Prakken, 2010).”
Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (2010, methodology): “Following common terminology in logic programming we will speak of the well-founded model rather than the grounded extension.”
Argumentation Mining on the Web from Information Seeking Perspective (2014, background): “Although this is an established field in informal logic (Prakken, 2010; Hunter, 2013; Hunter, 2014), such an approach might not be suitable directly for Web data as it assumes that argumentation is logical (such a strong assumption cannot be guar-”
A two-phase method for extracting explanatory arguments from Bayesian networks (2017, background): “Because our argumentation theory has no strict rules and no presumed knowledge it follows that any argument ordering is reasonable [37].”
An introduction to argumentation semantics (2011, methodology): “…base, we can then construct the 10 following arguments, based on an argument construction scheme as presented in Caminada and Amgoud (2007) and Prakken (2010): A 1 5 : ( jt 4 mt 4 st ) A 2 5 jw A 3 5 mw A 4 5 sw A 5 5 A 2 ) jt A 6 5 A 3 ) mt A 7 5 A 4 ) st A 8 5 A 6 , A 7 , A 1 - : jt A 9 5 A…”
The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial (2014, background): “Indeed, this reconstruction is formally shown in Prakken (2010), in which assumption premises were distinguished from ordinary premises, and used to model ABA assumptions.”
Combining explanation and argumentation in dialogue (2016, background): “Perhaps the most thorough work thus far is [2,6], in which arguments in the framework of [19] are combined with abductive-causal reasoning based on standard models of explanation [9] in one hybrid theory.”
Semi-stable semantics (2006, methodology): “Let us consider an argumentation formalism like ASPIC [4, 15, 45] or the argument-theoretic interpretation of oscar [43, 44].”
A general account of argumentation with preferences (2013, methodology): “In [40]’s ASPIC framework, arguments are defined by strict and defeasible rules and premises expressed in some abstract language.”
Toward a Theory of Assurance Case Confidence (2012, background): “Henry Prakken calls attention to a third kind of defeater: undermining defeaters [Prakken 2010].”