Logics for Defeasible Argumentation

By Henry Prakken, G. Vreeswijk. 2001

500 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f75bcdca22b3ab12c8fbfbf8a7c2be114ec134e3

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

Logical models of argument (2000, methodology): “The interested reader is referred to [Prakken and Vreeswijk 1999] for a deeper insight in some logics for defeasi-”
On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics (2007, background): “If a semantics S prescribes ES(AF) to be a singleton for any argumentation framework AF, S is said to belong to the unique-status approach, otherwise to the multiple-status approach [22].”
Argumentation-based negotiation (2003, methodology): “In frameworks such as those of Ramchurn et al. (2003b) and Kraus et al.”
Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation (2005, background): “Since we are dealing with dialogues for argumentation, one particular form of nonmonotonic logic is very appropriate, namely logics for defeasible argumentation, or argumentation systems for short (for an overview see [31]).”
On the Acceptability of Arguments in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (2005, background): “Argumentation has been applied in various domains and applications such as plausible inference from inconsistent knowledge bases, decision making and negotiation (see [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]).”
On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms (2007, unknown): “[19,25,26,28,43,45]), multiple-source information systems (e.”
Argumentation Mining in User-Generated Web Discourse (2016, background): “rent levels. An argumentation models abstract from the language level to a concept level that stresses the links between the different components of an argument or how arguments relate to each other (Prakken and Vreeswijk 2002). Bentahar, Moulin, and Bélanger (2010) propose a taxonomy of argumentati”
The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof (2007, unknown): “Like Pollock and Vreeswijk, Carneades abstracts from particular inference rules and the logical language.”
Towards an argument interchange format (2006, background): “…have found a wide range of applications in both theoretical and practical branches of artiﬁcial intelligence and computer science , as outlined in various recent reviews ( Carbogim : et al ., 2000; Chesn˜evar et al ., 2000; Prakken & Vreeswijk , 2002, Rahwan et al ., 2003; Reed & Norman , 2004).”
Combining explanation and argumentation in dialogue (2016, background): “A number of computational models of argumentation have emerged and matured in the past twenty-or-so years [20] and the computational aspects of the dialectics of argument and of the structure of argument are well understood (cf.”
SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics (2005, background): “In [22], it is suggested that, while these examples are problematic if one adheres to an intuitive symmetry requirement, an alternative view can be conceived where “odd defeat loops are of an essentially different kind than even defeat loops”.”