Notice: The reproducibility variables underlying each score are classified using an automated LLM-based pipeline, validated against a manually labeled dataset. LLM-based classification introduces uncertainty and potential bias; scores should be interpreted as estimates. Full accuracy metrics and methodology are described in [1].
Two Aspects of Relevance in Structured Argumentation: Minimality and Paraconsistency
Authors: Diana Grooters, Henry Prakken
JAIR 2016 | Venue PDF | LLM Run Details
| Reproducibility Variable | Result | LLM Response |
|---|---|---|
| Research Type | Theoretical | This paper studies two issues concerning relevance in structured argumentation in the context of the ASPIC + framework, arising from the combined use of strict and defeasible inference rules. One issue arises if the strict inference rules correspond to classical logic. A longstanding problem is how the trivialising effect of the classical Ex Falso principle can be avoided while satisfying consistency and closure postulates. In this paper, this problem is solved by disallowing chaining of strict rules, resulting in a variant of the ASPIC + framework called ASPIC , and then disallowing the application of strict rules to inconsistent sets of formulas. Thus in effect Rescher & Manor s paraconsistent notion of weak consequence is embedded in ASPIC . Another issue is minimality of arguments. If arguments can apply defeasible inference rules, then they cannot be required to have subset-minimal premises, since defeasible rules based on more information may well make an argument stronger. In this paper instead minimality is required of applications of strict rules throughout an argument. It is shown that under some plausible assumptions this does not affect the set of conclusions. In addition, circular arguments are in the new ASPIC framework excluded in a way that satisfies closure and consistency postulates and that generates finitary argumentation frameworks if the knowledge base and set of defeasible rules are finite. For the latter result the exclusion of chaining of strict rules is essential. Finally, the combined results of this paper are shown to be a proper extension of classical-logic argumentation with preferences and defeasible rules. |
| Researcher Affiliation | Collaboration | Diana Grooters EMAIL ORTEC Finance Rotterdam, The Netherlands Henry Prakken EMAIL Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University Faculty of Law, University of Groningen The Netherlands |
| Pseudocode | No | The paper describes logical frameworks and their properties using formal definitions and theorems, but it does not include any explicit pseudocode blocks or algorithms formatted as code. |
| Open Source Code | No | The paper does not contain any statements about releasing source code or provide links to code repositories. |
| Open Datasets | No | The paper discusses theoretical concepts in argumentation and logic, using abstract examples with logical formulas (e.g., L = {p, p, q, q, r, r, s, s, t, t, r1, r2, r1, r2}). It does not use or refer to any empirical datasets. |
| Dataset Splits | No | The paper is theoretical and does not involve experiments with datasets, thus no dataset splits are mentioned. |
| Hardware Specification | No | The paper is theoretical and does not describe any experiments that would require specific hardware specifications. |
| Software Dependencies | No | The paper focuses on theoretical logical frameworks and does not mention any specific software or libraries with version numbers required for implementation or experimentation. |
| Experiment Setup | No | The paper presents theoretical work on argumentation frameworks and logic. It does not describe any experimental setup, hyperparameters, or training configurations. |