The ASPIC⁺ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial

References

• Amgoud, L., & Besnard, P. (2009). Bridging the gap between abstract argumentation systems and logic. In L. Godo and A. Pugliese (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty (SUM’09), no. 5785 in Springer Lecture Notes in AI (pp. 12–27). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Amgoud, L., & Besnard, P. (2013). Logical limits of abstract argumentation frameworks. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics. 23, 229–267. doi: 10.1080/11663081.2013.830381
   Google Scholar
• Amgoud, L., & Cayrol, C. (2002). A model of reasoning based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 34, 197–215. doi: 10.1023/A:1014490210693
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bench-Capon, T., Prakken, H., & Visser, W. (2011). Argument schemes for two-phase democratic deliberation. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (pp. 21–30). New York, NY: ACM Press.
   Google Scholar
• Besnard, P., & Hunter, A. (2009). Argumentation based on classical logic. In I. Rahwan & G. Simari (Eds.), Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 133–152). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bex, F., Modgil, S., Prakken, H., & Reed, C. (2013). On logical specifications of the Argument Interchange Format. Journal of Logic and Computation, 23, 951–989. doi: 10.1093/logcom/exs033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bondarenko, A., Dung, P., Kowalski, R., & Toni, F. (1997). An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93, 63–101. doi: 10.1016/S0004-3702(97)00015-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewka, G. (1989). Preferred Subtheories: An Extended Logical Framework for Default Reasoning. In Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-89), San Francisco, CA, pp. 1043–1048.
   Google Scholar
• Caminada, M., For the sake of the Argument. Explorations into argument-based reasoning (Doctoral dissertation, Free University Amsterdam), 2004, Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Caminada, M., & Amgoud, L. (2007). On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 286–310. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2007.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caminada, M., Carnielli, W., & Dunne, P. (2012). Semi-stable semantics. Journal of Logic and Computation, 22, 1207–1254. doi: 10.1093/logcom/exr033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dung, P. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n–person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321–357. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dung, P., Kowalski, R., & Toni, F. (2009). Assumption-based argumentation. In I. Rahwan & G. Simari (Eds.), Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 199–218). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Garcia, A., & Simari, G. (2004). Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 4, 95–138. doi: 10.1017/S1471068403001674
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, T., Prakken, H., & Walton, D. (2007). The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 875–896. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraus, S., Lehmann, D., & Magidor, M. (1990). Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence, 44, 167–207. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(90)90101-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Modgil, S., & Prakken, H. (2013). A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artificial Intelligence, 195, 361–397. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2012.10.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearl, J. (1992). Epsilon-semantics. In S. Shapiro (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 468–475). New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Pollock, J. (1995). Cognitive carpentry. A blueprint for how to build a person. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pollock, J. (2009). A recursive semantics for defeasible reasoning. In I. Rahwan & G. Simari (Eds.), Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 173–197). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Prakken, H. (2010). An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation, 1, 93–124. doi: 10.1080/19462160903564592
   Google Scholar
• Prakken, H. (2012a). Formalising a legal opinion on a legislative proposal in the {ASPIC}+ framework. In B. Schafer (Ed.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2012: The Twenty-fifth Annual Conference (pp. 119–128). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prakken, H. (2012b). Reconstructing Popov v. Hayashi in a framework for argumentation with structured arguments and Dungean semantics. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20, 57–82. doi: 10.1007/s10506-012-9117-8
   Google Scholar
• Prakken, H. (2012c). Some reflections on two current trends in formal argumentation. In Logic Programs, Norms and Action. Essays in Honour of Marek J. Sergot on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday (pp. 249–272). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Prakken, H., Ionita, D., & Wieringa, R. (2013). Risk assessment as an argumentation game. In J. Leite, T.C. Son, P. Torroni, L. van der Torre, & S. Woltran, (Eds.) Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA XIV) (pp. 357–373). no. 8143 in Springer Lecture Notes in AI, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Prakken, H., Wyner, A., Bench-Capon, T., & Atkinson, K. (2013). A formalisation of argumentation schemes for legal case-based reasoning in ASPIC+. Journal of Logic and Computation, first published online May 9, 2013 doi:10.1093/logcom/ext010
   Google Scholar
• van der Weide, T. (2011). Arguing to motivate decisions (Doctoral dissertation Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University), Utrecht.
   Google Scholar
• van Gijzel, B., & Prakken, H. (2012). Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation via the {ASPIC}+ framework for structured argumentation. Argument and Computation, 3, 21–47. doi: 10.1080/19462166.2012.661766
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, Y. (2012). Between Argument and Conclusion. Argument-based Approaches to Discussion, Inference and Uncertainty (Doctoral Dissertation Faculty of Sciences, Technology and Communication, University of Luxemburg), Luxemburg.
   Google Scholar