A review of the relations between logical argumentation and reasoning with maximal consistency
DOI10.1007/S10472-019-09629-7zbMATH Open1474.68333OpenAlexW2941484025WikidataQ128021195 ScholiaQ128021195MaRDI QIDQ2294581FDOQ2294581
Ofer Arieli, Jesse Heyninck, Annemarie Borg
Publication date: 11 February 2020
Published in: Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (Search for Journal in Brave)
Full work available at URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-019-09629-7
Recommendations
structured argumentationdefeasible reasoninglogical argumentationdynamic proof systemsextension-based semanticsreasoning with maximal consistency
Cites Work
- How to reason defeasibly
- The logic of paradox
- An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning
- On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and \(n\)-person games
- Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation
- On inference from inconsistent premisses
- A general account of argumentation with preferences
- Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach
- Some syntactic approaches to the handling of inconsistent knowledge bases: A comparative study. I: The flat case
- Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks
- A logic-based theory of deductive arguments
- A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation.
- On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms
- Preferences in artificial intelligence
- Title not available (Why is that?)
- Title not available (Why is that?)
- Preference in Abstract Argumentation
- Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: postulates and properties
- Merging Information Under Constraints: A Logical Framework
- Skepticism relations for comparing argumentation semantics
- Integration of weighted knowledge bases
- Assumption-Based Argumentation for Epistemic and Practical Reasoning
- Reasoning about truth
- Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems
- A calculus of antinomics
- Title not available (Why is that?)
- Sequent-Based Argumentation for Normative Reasoning
- Logical limits of abstract argumentation frameworks
- Non-Monotonic Inference Properties for Assumption-Based Argumentation
- Identifying the Class of Maxi-Consistent Operators in Argumentation
- Classical logic, argument and dialectic
- Deductive argumentation by enhanced sequent calculi and dynamic derivations
- Title not available (Why is that?)
- A generalized proof-theoretic approach to logical argumentation based on hypersequents
- Logical argumentation by dynamic proof systems
- Title not available (Why is that?)
- Hypersequent-based argumentation: an instantiation in the relevance logic RM
- Reasoning with maximal consistency by argumentative approaches
- Normative reasoning by sequent-based argumentation
- ASPIC-END: structured argumentation with explanations and natural deduction
- Title not available (Why is that?)
- Simple contrapositive assumption-based frameworks
- Beyond Maxi-Consistent Argumentation Operators
Cited In (6)
- A postulate-driven study of logical argumentation
- Simple contrapositive assumption-based argumentation. II: Reasoning with preferences
- A generalized proof-theoretic approach to logical argumentation based on hypersequents
- Simple contrapositive assumption-based argumentation frameworks
- An argumentative approach for handling inconsistency in prioritized Datalog ± ontologies
- Computing repairs under functional and inclusion dependencies via argumentation
Uses Software
This page was built for publication: A review of the relations between logical argumentation and reasoning with maximal consistency
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2294581)
