Modular orders on defaults in formal argumentation

Default logic and formal argumentation are paradigmatic methods in the study of nonmonotonic inference. Defeasible information often comes in different strengths stemming from different degrees of reliability in epistemic applications or from varying strengths of authorities issuing norms in deontic...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of logic and computation 2022-11
Main Authors: Pardo, Pere, Straßer, Christian
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Default logic and formal argumentation are paradigmatic methods in the study of nonmonotonic inference. Defeasible information often comes in different strengths stemming from different degrees of reliability in epistemic applications or from varying strengths of authorities issuing norms in deontic applications. In both paradigms, methods have been developed to deal with prioritized knowledge bases and normative systems. Questions of comparability of these methods therefore naturally arise. Argumentation theory has been developed with a strong emphasis on unification. It is therefore a desideratum to obtain natural representations of various approaches to (prioritized) default logic within frameworks of structured argumentation, such as ASPIC. Important steps in this direction have been presented in Liao et al. (2016, 2018). In this work, we identify and address some problems in earlier translations, we broaden the focus from total to modular orderings of defaults and we consider non-normal defaults.
ISSN:0955-792X
1465-363X
DOI:10.1093/logcom/exac084