Structured argumentation with prioritized conditional obligations and permissions

Beirlaen, Mathieu; Heyninck, Jesse; Straßer, Christian

doi:10.1093/logcom/exy005

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We first define how arguments are constructed. 11 Definition 2. Let AS = (L, S, D, K, n, , ) be an argumentation system.…”

Section: Argument Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rationality and maximal consistent sets for a fragment of ASPIC + without undercut

Heyninck

Straßer

2021

AAC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structured argumentation formalisms, such as ASPIC + , offer a formal model of defeasible reasoning. Usually such formalisms are highly parametrized and modular in order to provide a unifying framework in which different forms of reasoning can be expressed. This generality comes at the price that, in their most general form, formalisms such as ASPIC + do not satisfy important rationality postulates, such as non-interference. Similarly, links to other forms of knowledge representation, such as reasoning with maximal consistent sets of rules, are insufficiently studied for ASPIC + although such links have been established for other, less complex forms of structured argumentation where defeasible rules are absent. Clearly, for a formal model of defeasible reasoning it is important to understand for which range of parameters the formalism (a) displays a behavior that adheres to common standards of consistency, logical closure and logical relevance and (b) can be adequately described in terms of other well-known forms of knowledge representation. In this paper we answer this question positively for a fragment of ASPIC + without the attack form undercut by showing that it satisfies all standard rationality postulates of structured argumentation under stable and preferred semantics and is adequate for reasoning with maximal consistent sets of defeasible rules. The study is general in that we do not impose any other requirements on the strict rules than to be contrapositable and propositional and in that we also consider priorities among defeasible rules, as long as they are ordered by a total preorder and lifted by weakest link. In this way we generalize previous similar results for other structured argumentation frameworks and so shed further light on the close relations between assumption-based argumentation and ASPIC + .

show abstract

“…We first define how arguments are constructed. 11 Definition 2. Let AS = (L, S, D, K, n, , ) be an argumentation system.…”

Section: Argument Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• Recently ASPIC [11,39,41] has been proposed. It is the first member of the ASPIC-family that satisfies all standard rationality postulates (including non-interference and crash-resistance) even when taking into account preorders over defeasible rules.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rationality and maximal consistent sets for a fragment of ASPIC + without undercut

Heyninck

Straßer

2021

AAC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Deontic logic is the logic of obligation, prohibition and permission [7,18]. Many axioms of deontic logic have been criticised, and non-monotonic techniques have been applied widely [11,20,23,17,21,3]. In this paper we consider the use of so-called ASPIC`to design deontic argumentation systems and non-monotonic deontic logics and, in particular, to study strong and free-choice permission [9].…”

Section: Using Aspic`to Design Non-monotonic Deontic Logicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…possible world semantics), argumentation theory can be studied using rationality postulates [6], and non-monotonic inference can be analysed using, for example, the approach advocated by Kraus et al [12]. 3 Step 1: arguments based on two monotonic logics…”

Section: It Is Forbidden To Murdermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our study opens up many lines of further research. For example, as done by Beirlaen et al [3], we can consider the alternatives of monotonic combinations, like D minus K O and NEC O as the logic for strict rules and SDL minus weak permission as the logic for defeasible rules. In this case, we can go for the approach of permission overriding obligation.…”

Section: Summary and Concluding Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From Classical to Non-monotonic Deontic Logic Using ASPIC $$^+$$

Dong

Liao

Markovich

et al. 2019

Logic, Rationality, and Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A Deontic Argumentation Framework Based on Deontic Defeasible Logic

Governatori

Rotolo

Riveret

2018

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

show abstract

Structured argumentation with prioritized conditional obligations and permissions

Cited by 10 publications

References 21 publications

Rationality and maximal consistent sets for a fragment of ASPIC + without undercut

Rationality and maximal consistent sets for a fragment of ASPIC + without undercut

From Classical to Non-monotonic Deontic Logic Using ASPIC $$^+$$

A Deontic Argumentation Framework Based on Deontic Defeasible Logic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About