Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations

Bex, Floris; Prakken, Henry; Reed, Chris; Walton, Douglas

doi:10.1023/b:arti.0000046007.11806.9a

Cited by 153 publications

(159 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

150

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A natural way to formalise reasoning with argument schemes is to regard them as defeasible inference rules and to regard critical questions as pointers to counterarguments (this approach was earlier defended by Bex et al 2003 and. More precisely, the three kinds of attack on arguments correspond to three kinds of critical questions of argument schemes.…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments

Prakken¹

2010

Argument & Computation

Self Cite

472

557

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An abstract framework for structured arguments is presented that instantiates Dung's (1995) abstract argumentation frameworks. Arguments are defined as inference trees formed by applying two kinds of inference rules: strict and defeasible rules. This naturally leads to three ways of attacking an argument: attacking a premise, attacking a conclusion and attacking an inference. To resolve such attacks, preferences may be used, which leads to three corresponding kinds of defeat: undermining, rebutting and undercutting defeat. The nature of the inference rules, the structure of the logical language on which they operate and the origin of the preferences are, apart from some basic assumptions, left unspecified.The resulting framework integrates work of Pollock, Vreeswijk and others on the structure of arguments and the nature of defeat, and extends it in several respects. Various rationality postulates are proven to be satisfied by the framework, and several existing approaches are proven to be a special case of the framework, including assumption-based argumentation and DefLog.

show abstract

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments

Prakken¹

2010

Argument & Computation

Self Cite

472

557

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8 In our example, the evidence e 1 : Sander says "Francis shot Kevin" supports the story S 1 , as e 1 supports the event in the story Francis shot Kevin through the evidential argument. Note that evidence only supports a story through a justified argument: if the argument is defeated, the evidence does not support the explanation as the link between the evidence and the story is effectively "cut".…”

Section: Definition 11 [Evidential Support]mentioning

confidence: 56%

“…The causal links could then be questioned with arguments based on general knowledge (cf. [8]) and thus the coherence of a story could be supported or contradicted (e.g. by asserting that 'it is general knowledge that x shoots y ⇒ C y dies').…”

Section: Definition 13 [Evidential Gaps]mentioning

confidence: 99%

Legal stories and the process of proof

Bex

Verheij

2012

Artif Intell Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we continue our research on a hybrid narrative-argumentative approach to evidential reasoning in the law by showing the interaction between factual reasoning (providing a proof for 'what happened' in a case) and legal reasoning (making a decision based on the proof). First we extend the hybrid theory by making the connection with reasoning towards legal consequences. We then emphasise the role of legal stories (as opposed to the factual stories of the hybrid theory). Legal stories provide a coherent, holistic legal perspective on a case. They steer what needs to be proven but are also selected on the basis of what can be proven. We show how these legal stories can be used to model a shift of the legal perspective on a case, and we discuss how gaps in a legal story can be filled using a factual story (i.e. the process of reasoning with circumstantial evidence). Our model is illustrated by a discussion of the Dutch Wamel murder case.

show abstract

“…For example, some of the authors of this paper developed a scheme for practical reasoning (Atkinson et al, 2006) that has been widely used to facilitate reasoning about what to do in a number of different problem scenarios. Schemes concerning witness testimony and expert opinion have also been used in computational argument (see, for example, Gordon, Prakken, & Walton, 2007), and there have been several attempts to capture argument schemes from legal reasoning in various forms of logic (Bex, Prakken, Reed, & Walton, 2003;Prakken, 2010;Verheij, 2003). The reason that such schemes have attracted the attention of researchers in computational argumentation is that their defeasible nature makes them naturally attractive to the non-deductive form of reasoning that many people are interested in capturing in argument-based approaches.…”

Section: Related Work On Argumentation Schemesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argument schemes for reasoning about trust

Parsons

Atkinson

et al. 2014

Argument & Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trust is a natural mechanism by which an autonomous party, an agent, can deal with the inherent uncertainty regarding the behaviours of other parties and the uncertainty in the information it shares with those parties. Trust is thus crucial in any decentralised system. This paper builds on recent efforts to use argumentation to reason about trust. Specifically, a set of schemes is provided, and abstract patterns of reasoning that apply in multiple situations geared towards trust. Schemes are described in which one agent, A, can establish arguments for trusting another agent, B, directly, as well as schemes that A can use to construct arguments for trusting C, where C is trusted by B. For both sets of schemes, a set of critical questions is offered that identify the situations in which these schemes can fail.

show abstract

Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations

Abstract: ABSTRACT

Cited by 153 publications

References 33 publications

An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments

An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments

Legal stories and the process of proof

Argument schemes for reasoning about trust

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About