How to reason defeasibly. The paper describes the construction of a general-purpose defeasible reasoner that is complete for first-order logic and provably adequate for the argument-based conception of defeasible reasoning. Because the set of warranted conclusions for a defeasible reasoner will not generally be recursively enumerable, a defeasible reasoner based upon a rich logic like the predicate calculus cannot function like a traditional theorem prover and simply enumerate the warranted conclusions. An alternative criterion of adequacy called i.d.e.-adequacy is formulated. This criterion takes seriously the idea that defeasible reasoning may involve indefinitely many cycles of retracting and reinstating conclusions. It is shown how to construct a reasoner that, subject to certain realistic assumptions, is provably i.d.e.-adequate. The most recent version of OSCAR implements this system, and examples are given of OSCAR’s operation.

References in zbMATH (referenced in 44 articles , 1 standard article )

Showing results 1 to 20 of 44.
Sorted by year (citations)

1 2 3 next

  1. Alcântara, João; Sá, Samy: On three-valued acceptance conditions of abstract dialectical frameworks (2019)
  2. Arieli, Ofer; Borg, AnneMarie; Heyninck, Jesse: A review of the relations between logical argumentation and reasoning with maximal consistency (2019)
  3. Arieli, Ofer; Straßer, Christian: Logical argumentation by dynamic proof systems (2019)
  4. Amgoud, Leila; Ben-Naim, Jonathan: Evaluation of arguments in weighted bipolar graphs (2018)
  5. Cohen, Andrea; Parsons, Simon; Sklar, Elizabeth I.; McBurney, Peter: A characterization of types of support between structured arguments and their relationship with support in abstract argumentation (2018)
  6. Amgoud, Leila; Nouioua, Farid: An argumentation system for defeasible reasoning (2017)
  7. Matt, Paul-Amaury: Uses and computation of imprecise probabilities from statistical data and expert arguments (2017)
  8. Arieli, Ofer; Straßer, Christian: Deductive argumentation by enhanced sequent calculi and dynamic derivations (2016)
  9. Vagin, V. N.; Morosin, O. L.; Fomina, M. V.: Inductive inference and argumentation methods in modern intelligent decision support systems (2016)
  10. Baroni, Pietro; Giacomin, Massimiliano; Liao, Beishui: I don’t care, I don’t know (…) I know too much! on incompleteness and undecidedness in abstract argumentation (2015)
  11. Amgoud, Leila: Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems (2014)
  12. d’Avila Garcez, Artur S.; Gabbay, Dov M.; Lamb, Luis C.: A neural cognitive model of argumentation with application to legal inference and decision making (2014)
  13. Kaci, Souhila; Labreuche, Christophe: Valued preference-based instantiation of argumentation frameworks with varied strength defeats (2014)
  14. Arieli, Ofer; Caminada, Martin W. A.: A QBF-based formalization of abstract argumentation semantics (2013)
  15. Amgoud, Leila; Vesic, Srdjan: A new approach for preference-based argumentation frameworks (2012)
  16. Black, Elizabeth; Hunter, Anthony: A relevance-theoretic framework for constructing and deconstructing enthymemes (2012)
  17. Caminada, Martin W. A.; Carnielli, Walter A.; Dunne, Paul E.: Semi-stable semantics (2012)
  18. Dvořák, Wolfgang; Ordyniak, Sebastian; Szeider, Stefan: Augmenting tractable fragments of abstract argumentation (2012)
  19. Gaspers, Serge; Szeider, Stefan: Backdoors to satisfaction (2012)
  20. Schwarzentruber, François; Vesic, Srdjan; Rienstra, Tjitze: Building an epistemic logic for argumentation (2012)

1 2 3 next