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 Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In this paper, we present a preliminary work on an approach to fill the gapbetween logic-based argumentation and the numerous approaches to tackle thedynamics of abstract argumentation frameworks. Our idea is that, even whenarguments and attacks are defined by means of a logical belief base, there maybe some uncertainty about how accurate is the content of an argument, and sothe presence (or absence) of attacks concerning it. We use enthymemes toillustrate this notion of uncertainty of arguments and attacks. Indeed, asargued in the literature, real arguments are often enthymemes instead ofcompletely specified deductive arguments. This means that some parts of thepair (support, claim) may be missing because they are supposed to belong tosome "common knowledge", and then should be deduced by the agent which receivesthe enthymeme. But the perception that agents have of the common knowledge maybe wrong, and then a first agent may state an enthymeme that her opponent isnot able to decode in an accurate way. It is likely that the decoding of theenthymeme by the agent leads to mistaken attacks between this new argument andthe existing ones. In this case, the agent can receive some information aboutattacks or arguments acceptance statuses which disagree with her argumentationframework. We exemplify a way to incorporate this new piece of information bymeans of existing works on the dynamics of abstract argumentation frameworks.

Using Enthymemes to Fill the Gap between Logical Argumentation and Revision of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks