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/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Recently, abstract argumentation-based models of case-based reasoning (AA-CBR in short) have been proposed, originally inspired by the legal domain, but also applicable as classifiers in different scenarios. However, the formal properties of AA-CBR as a reasoning system remain largely unexplored. In this paper, we focus on analysing the non-monotonicity properties of a regular version of AA-CBR (that we call AA-CBR_&gt;). Specifically, we prove that AA-CBR_&gt; is not cautiously monotonic, a property frequently considered desirable in the literature. We then define a variation of AA-CBR_&gt; which is cautiously monotonic. Further, we prove that such variation is equivalent to using AA-CBR_&gt; with a restricted casebase consisting of all "surprising" and "sufficient" cases in the original casebase. As a by-product, we prove that this variation of AA-CBR_&gt; is cumulative, rationally monotonic, and empowers a principled treatment of noise in "incoherent" casebases. Finally, we illustrate AA-CBR and cautious monotonicity questions on a case study on the U.S. Trade Secrets domain, a legal casebase.

Monotonicity and Noise-Tolerance in Case-Based Reasoning with Abstract Argumentation