Deening Normative Systems for Qualitative Argumentation
نویسنده
چکیده
Inspired by two diierent approaches to providing a qualitative method for reasoning under uncertainty|qualitative probabilistic networks and systems of argumentation|this paper attempts to combine the advantages of both by deening systems of argumentation that have a probabilistic semantics.
منابع مشابه
Defining Normative Systems for Qualitative Argumentation
Inspired by two diierent approaches to providing a qualitative method for reasoning under uncertainty|qualitative probabilistic networks and systems of argumentation|this paper attempts to combine the advantages of both by deening systems of argumentation that have a probabilistic semantics.
متن کاملNormative Argumentation and Qualitative Probability
In recent years there has been a spate of papers describing systems for plausible reasoning which do not use numerical measures of uncertainty. Some of the most successful of these have been systems for argumentation, and there are advantages in considering the conditions under which such systems are normative. This paper discusses an extension to previous work on normative argumentation, explo...
متن کاملComparing normative argumentation to other probabilistic systems
This paper discusses a system of argu-mentation with a probabilistic semantics and compares it to two other probabilistic systems|Wellman's qualitative probabilis-tic networks and Neufeld's probabilistic default reasoning.
متن کاملPrioritized Norms in Formal Argumentation
To resolve conflicts among norms, various nonmonotonic formalisms can be used to perform prioritized normative reasoning. Meanwhile, formal argumentation provides a way to represent nonmonotonic logics. In this paper, we propose a representation of prioritized normative reasoning by argumentation. Using hierarchical abstract normative systems, we define three kinds of prioritized normative reas...
متن کاملAn ASPIC-based legal argumentation framework for deontic reasoning
In the last years, argumentation theory has been exploited to reason about norms, argue about enforced obligations and permissions, and establish the validity of norms seen as argumentative claims. In this paper, we start from the dynamic legal argumentation framework recently proposed by Prakken and Sartor, and we extend their ASPIC-based system by introducing deontic modalities, to include al...
متن کامل