English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Pro

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Presents AI Discovery search usage as a premium feature

AI Discovery

Presents AI Discovery explain and summary usage as a premium feature

Content Analysis

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

1500 Top-up

3000 Top-up

Zendy Basic

2500 Top-up

Zendy Unlimited

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Explaining solutions to logical problems is one of the areas where argumentation in natural language plays a prominent role. One crucial reason for the difficulty in pursuing this issue in a systematic manner when relying on formal inference systems lies in the discrepancy between machine-oriented reasoning and human-adequate argumentation. Aiming at bridging these two divergent views, we present a model for producing human-adequate argumentation from machine-oriented inference structures. Ingredients of our method are techniques to build representations to suitable degrees of abstraction and explicitness, and a module for their interactive and adaptive exploration. The presented techniques are not only relevant for the interactive use of theorem provers, but they also have the potential to support the functionality of dialog-oriented tutorial systems.

Argumentation in Explanations to Logical Problems