Table of Contents

2024

  • Louise Dupuis de Tarlé, Matteo Michelini, AnneMarie Borg, Gabriella Pigozzi, Juliette Rouchier, Dunja Šešelja, Christian Straßer,
    An Agent-Based Model of MySide Bias in Scientific Debates,
    Forthcoming in JASSS.
  • Said Jabbour, Badran Raddaoui, Christian Straßer,
    Towards a Principle-based Framework for Assessing the Contribution of Formulas on the Conflicts of Knowledge Bases,
    , Forthcoming IJCAI 2024.
  • Ofer Arieli, Kees van Berkel, Christian Straßer,
    Defeasible Normative Reasoning: A Proof-Theoretic Integration of Logical Argumentation,
    Forthcoming, AAAI 2024.

2023

  • Kees van Berkel, Reka Markovich, Christian Straßer, Leon van der Torre,
    Arguing About Choosing a Normative System: Conflict of Laws,
    Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX 2023), p. 73–82, 2023
christiantiny.png lisatiny.jpg
  • Christian Straßer and Lisa Michajlova,
    Evaluating and Selecting Arguments in the Context of Higher Order Uncertainty,
    accepted for publication in Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence.
  • Ofer Arieli, AnneMarie Borg and Christian Straßer,
    A Postulate-Driven Study of Logical Argumentation,
    accepted for Artificial Intelligence Journal
  • Said Jabbour, Badran Raddaoui and Christian Straßer,
    A Comparative Study of Ranking Formulas based on Consistency,
    accepted for publication in IJCAI 2023 (15% acceptance rate)
  • Jesse Heyninck, Badran Raddaoui and Christian Straßer,
    Ranking-based Argumentation Semantics applied to Logical Argumentation,
    accepted for publication in IJCAI 2023 (15% acceptance rate)
  • Matteo Michelini, Javier Osorio, Wybo Houkes, Dunja Šešelja, and Christian Straßer,
    “Scientific disagreements and the diagnosticity of evidence: how too much data may lead to polarization”,
    accepted for publication in JASSS (Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation), 2023.

2022

annemarietiny.jpg ofertiny.jpg christiantiny.png matthistiny.jpg

  • Ofer Arieli, AnneMarie Borg, Matthis Hesse, and Christian Straßer,
    Explainable Logic-Based Argumentation,
    Proceedings of COMMA 2022

    pere.jpg christiantiny.png

  • Pere Pardo and Christian Straßer,
    Modular orders on defaults in formal argumentation,
    Journal of Logic and Computation, https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exac084

    annemarietiny.jpg ofertiny.jpg christiantiny.png matthistiny.jpg

  • Ofer Arieli, AnneMarie Borg, Matthis Hesse, and Christian Straßer,
    Abductive Reasoning with Sequent-Based Argumentation (Short Paper),
    Proceedings of NMR 2022.

    keestiny.png christiantiny.png

  • Kees van Berkel and Christian Straßer,
    Reasoning with and About Norms in Logical Argumentation,
    Proceedings of COMMA 2022.

    keestiny.png christiantiny.png ofertiny.jpg

  • Ofer Arieli, Kees van Berkel and Christian Straßer,
    Annotated Sequent Calculi for Paraconsistent Reasoning and Their Relations to Logical Argumentation,
    Proceedings of IJCAI 2022 (acceptance rate, 15%)

2021

annemarietiny.jpg christiantiny.png ofertiny.jpg

  • Ofer Arieli, AnneMarie Borg, Jesse Heyninck and Christian Straßer,
    Logic-based approaches to formal argumentation,
    Journal of Applied Logics, IfCoLog Journal of Logics and Their Applications, p. 1793-1898, Vol.8 (6), 2021
annemarietiny.jpg ofertiny.jpg christiantiny.png
  • Ofer Arieli, AnneMarie Borg, and Christian Straßer,
    Characterizations and Classifications of Argumentative Entailments,
    Proceedings of KR 2021. (Acceptance rate full papers: 25%)

    In this paper we provide a detailed analysis of the inference process induced by logical argumentation frameworks. The frameworks may be defined with respect to any propositional language and logic, different arguments that represent deductions in the logic, various support-based attack relations between arguments, and all the complete Dung-style semantics for the frameworks. We show that, ultimately, for characterizing the inference process with respect to a given framework, extension-based semantics may be divided into two types: single-extension and multiple-extension, which induce respective kinds of entailment relations. These entailments are further classified by the way they tolerate new information (nonmonotonicity-related properties) and maintain conflicts among arguments (inconsistency-related properties). Moreover, we show how the entailments induced by reasoning on the basis of maximal consistency, by Makinson’s default assumptions and by adaptive logics correspond to the entailments induced by specific classes of logical argumentation frameworks.

christiantiny.png pere.jpg
  • Christian Straßer and Pere Pardo,
    Prioritized Defaults and Formal Argumentation,
    Proceedings of DEON 2020/21

    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. 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.

annemarietiny.jpg christiantiny.png ofertiny.jpg

  • AnneMarie Borg, Christian Straßer and Ofer Arieli,
    A Generalized Proof-Theoretic Approach to Logical Argumentation based on Hypersequents,
    accepted for Studia Logica

    sandersontiny.jpg christiantiny.png

  • Sanderson Molick and Christian Straßer,
    Valuation and Compactness in Finitely-Valued Nondeterministic First Order Logics,
    Conditionally accepted for the Logic Journal of the IGPL

    ofertiny.jpg annemarietiny.jpg jessetiny.jpg christiantiny.png

  • Ofer Arieli, AnneMarie Borg, Jesse Heyninck, and Christian Straßer,
    Logic-Based Approaches to Formal Argumentation,
    Conditionally accepted for the Handbook of Formal Argumentation, Vol.2

    sandersontiny.jpg
  • Sanderson Molick,
    Logical theory revision through data underdetermination: an anti-exceptionalist exercise,
    Forthcoming in Principia: an international journal of epistemology, 2021

2020

ofertiny.jpg annemarietiny.jpg christiantiny.png

  • AnneMarie Borg, Ofer Arieli and Christian Straßer,
    Tuning Logical Argumentation Frameworks: A Postulate-Derived Approach,
    accepted for FLAIRS, 2020

    annemarietiny.jpg

  • AnneMarie Borg,
    Assumptive Sequent-based Argumentation,
    accepted for IFCOLOG.
  • Ofer Arieli and Christian Straßer, On Minimality and Consistency Tolerance in Logical Argumentation Frameworks, accepted for COMMA 2020.

    jessetiny.jpg christiantiny.png

  • Jesse Heyninck and Christian Straßer, Rationality and maximal consistent sets for a fragment of \(\mathrm{ASPIC} ^{+}\) without undercut, accepted for Argument and Computation.

    jessetiny.jpg christiantiny.png

    • Also appeared in: Jesse Heyninck and Christian Straßer, Rationality and maximal consistent sets for a fragment of \(\mathrm{ASPIC} ^{+}\) without undercut, accepted for the Recently Published Research track of KR2020.
    sandersontiny.jpg
  • Jonas Arenhart and Sanderson Molick,
    On the very idea of choosing a logic: the role of the background logic,
    In: Abstract consequence and logics – Essays in honor of Edelcio G. Souza, College Publications, 2020.

2019

jessetiny.jpg christiantiny.png

  • Jesse Heyninck and Christian Straßer,
    A comparative study of assumption-based approaches to reasoning with priorities,
    accepted for the Journal of Applied Logic, 2019

    In this paper we study formal properties of approaches to the reasoning with prioritized defeasible assumptions. We focus on methods proposed in formal argumentation, more specifically in the context of assumption- based argumentation.

    We systematically compare two approaches for handling conflicts: pref- erence-based defeats and preference-based defeats extended with reverse defeat. We investigate under which conditions these approaches give rise to the same output. We study several meta-theoretical properties includ- ing argumentation theoretical properties (such as Dung’s Fundamental Lemma and the consistency of extensions) and properties for nonmono- tonic reasoning (such as Cautious Monotony and Cut) in a parametrized way, i.e., relative to specific constraints on the underlying deducability relation. Finally, we study the relationship between these approaches and preferred subtheories, a nonmonotonic reasoning formalism that is based on maximal consistent subsets of a totally ordered knowledge base.

    In the parametrized setting we study different sub-classes of assumption- based argumentation frameworks. For instance, we identify a particularly well-behaved sub-class of argumentation-based frameworks for which the different conflict-handling mechanisms coincide, which give the same out- comes as preferred subtheories and for which core properties of nonmono- tonic logic are valid.

    Keywords: structured argumentation; abstract argumentation; non- monotonic logic; defeasible reasoning; preferred subtheories; maximal consistent sets; preferences; priorities; 1 Introduction

    sandersontiny.jpg
  • Sanderson Molick,
    A note on Beal & Restall’s pluralism and non-Tarskian logics,
    In: Proceedings of the 3rd Filomena Workshop, 2019

    annemarietiny.jpg christiantiny.png ofertiny.jpg

  • AnneMarie Borg, Christian Straßer and Ofer Arieli,
    A Generalized Proof-Theoretic Approach to Logical Argumentation based on Hypersequents,
    Studia Logica, 2019

    In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modelling of defeasible reasoning by means of logic-based argumentation and the induced entailment relations. These structures are an extension of sequent-based argumentation frameworks, in which arguments and the attack relations among them are expressed not only by Gentzen-style sequents, but by more general expressions, called hypersequents. This generalization allows us to overcome some of the known weaknesses of logical argumentation frameworks and to prove several desirable properties of the entailments that are induced by the extended (hypersequent-based) frameworks. It also allows us to incorporate as the deductive base of our formalism some well-known logics (like the intermediate logic LC, the modal logic S5, and the relevance logic RM), which lack cut-free sequent calculi, and so are not adequate for standard sequent-based argumentation. We show that hypersequent-based argumentation yields robust defeasible variants of these logics, with many desirable properties.

    annemarietiny.jpg tiny_dunja._e_elja.jpg christiantiny.png

  • Dunja Seselja, Christian Straßer, and AnneMarie Borg,
    Formal Models of Scientific Inquiry in a Social Context: an Introduction,
    Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 2019

    Formal models of scientific inquiry, aimed at capturing socio-epistemic aspects underlying the process of scientific research, have become an important method in formal social epistemology and philosophy of science. In this introduction to the special issue we provide a historical overview of the development of formal models of this kind and analyze their methodological contributions to discussions in philosophy of science. In particular, we show that their significance consists in different forms of `methodological iteration’ (Elliott, 2012) whereby the models initiate new lines of inquiry, isolate and clarify problems with existing knowledge claims, and stimulate further research.

    ofertiny.jpg annemarietiny.jpg jessetiny.jpg

  • Ofer Arieli, AnneMarie Borg, and Jesse Heyninck,
    Structured Argumentation and Reasoning with Maximal Consistency,
    Annals of Mathematics and Artificial intelligence, 2019

    ofertiny.jpg jessetiny.jpg

  • Ofer Arieli and Jesse Heyninck,
    Simple Contrapositive Assumption-Based Frameworks,
    LPNMR, 2019

    jaredtiny.jpg christiantiny.png

  • Jared Millson and Christian Straßer,
    A Logic for Best Explanations,
    Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 2019

    jessetiny.jpg christiantiny.png

  • Jesse Heyninck and Christian Straßer,
    A fully rational argumentation system for preordered defeasible rulesc,
    AAMAS 2019 (full paper, acceptance rate: 24%).

    Structured argumentation is a family of formal approaches for the handling of defeasible, potentially inconsistent information. Many models for structured argumentation distinguish between strict and defeasible inference rules. Defeasible rules often come with varying degrees of strength which is formally represented by a preorder over the defeasible rules. Various lifting principles have been presented in the literature to determine the relative strength of an argument by considering the strength of the defeasible rules used in its construction. The strength of arguments then comes into play when determining whether an attack (a purely syntactic relationship between arguments) results in a defeat (i.e. a successful attack). In \cite{caminada2007evaluation,Wu-Phd}, several rationality postulates were proposed that serve as a measure to assess the normative rationality of structured argumentation formalisms. In \cite{heyninck2017revisiting}, the first formalism satisfying all rationality postulates for structured argumentation when taking into account totally ordered defeasible rules was proposed. In many settings, assuming a total order greatly limits the realistic modelling capabilities of a formal system, e.g. when agents do not know the actual preferences of each rule or since different agents have different preferences over defeasible rules. Our paper shows that in the more general setting of preorders, violations of several rationality postulates can occur. We show how for a wide class of lifting principles, these violations can be avoided, resulting in the first Dung-based system that satisfies all four rationality postulates for preordered defeasible rule bases.

    jessetiny.jpg
  • Jesse Heyninck,
    Investigations into the logical foundations of defeasible reasoning: an Argumentative Perspective,
    PhD thesis, Ruhr-University Bochum, 2019 (summa cum laude)

    jessetiny.jpg ofertiny.jpg

  • Jesse Heyninck and Ofer Arieli,
    Simple Contrapositive Assumption-Based Argumentation Frameworks,
    AAMAS 2019 (extended abstract)

    ofertiny.jpg christiantiny.png

  • Ofer Arieli and Christian Straßer,
    Logical Argumentation by Dynamic Proof Systems,
    Theoretical Computer Science, 2019

    In this paper we provide a proof theoretical investigation of logical argumentation, where arguments are represented by sequents, conflicts between arguments are represented by sequent elimination rules, and deductions are made by dynamic proof systems extending standard sequent calculi. The idea is to imitate argumentative movements in which certain claims are introduced or withdrawn in the presence of counter-claims. This is done by a dynamic evaluation of sequences of sequents, in which the latter are considered `derived’ or `not derived’ according to the content of the sequence. We show that decisive conclusions of such a process correspond to well-accepted consequences of the underlying argumentation framework. The outcome is therefore a general and modular proof-theoretical approach for paraconsistent and non-monotonic reasoning with argumentation systems.

    annemarietiny.jpg danielftiny.png tiny_dunja._e_elja.jpg christiantiny.png

  • AnneMarie Borg, Daniel Frey, Dunja Seselja, and Christian Straßer,
    Theory-Choice, Transient Diversity and the Efficiency of Scientific Inquiry,
    European Journal of Philosophy of Science, 2019

    Recent studies of scientific interaction based on agent-based models (ABMs) suggest that a crucial factor conducive to efficient inquiry is what \cite{zollman2010epistemic} has dubbed `transient diversity’. It signifies a process in which a community engages in parallel exploration of rivaling theories lasting sufficiently long for the community to identify the best theory and to converge on it. But what exactly generates transient diversity? And is transient diversity a decisive factor when it comes to the efficiency of inquiry? In this paper we examine the impact of different conditions on the efficiency of inquiry, as well as the relation between diversity and efficiency. This includes certain diversity-generating mechanisms previously proposed in the literature (such as different social networks and cautious decision-making), as well as some factors that have so far been neglected (such as evaluations underlying theory-choice performed by scientists).

    This study is obtained via an argumentation-based ABM (\cite{ArgABM-HSR,ABM-Lori}). Our results suggest that cautious decision-making does not always have a significant impact on the efficiency of inquiry while different evaluations underlying theory-choice and different social networks do. Moreover, we find a correlation between diversity and a successful performance of agents only under specific conditions, which indicates that transient diversity is sometimes not the primary factor responsible for efficiency. Altogether, when comparing our results to those obtained by structurally different ABMs based on Zollman’s work, the impact of specific factors on efficiency of inquiry, as well as the role of transient diversity in achieving efficiency, appear to be highly dependent on the underlying model.

    pere.jpg
  • H. van Ditmarsch, M. Gattinger, L. B. Kuijer and P. Pardo,
    Strengthening Gossip Protocols using Protocol-Dependent Knowledge,
    Journal of Applied Logics - IFCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications 6(1), 2019

    ofertiny.jpg annemarietiny.jpg christiantiny.png
  • AnneMarie Borg, Ofer Arieli and Christian Straßer,
    Reasoning with maximal consistency by argumentative approaches,
    Journal of Logic and Computation, forthcoming.

2018

jessetiny.jpg
  • Jesse Heyninck,
    Relations between Assumption-Based approaches in nonmonotonic logic and formal argumentation: from Structured Argumentation to Adaptive Logics
    accepted for the Journal of Applied Logic special issue for IsraLog’2017

    tiny_mathieu.beirlaen.jpg jessetiny.jpg christiantiny.png
  • Mathieu Beirlaen, Jesse Heyninck, and Christian Straßer,
    A critical assessment of Pollock’s work on logic-based argumentation with suppositions,
    NMR 2018.

    pere.jpg
  • H. van Ditmarsch, J. van Eijck, P. Pardo, R. Ramezanian and F. Schwarzentruber
    Dynamic Gossip,
    Bulletin of the Iranian Mathematical Society, Springer

    tiny_mathieu.beirlaen.jpg jessetiny.jpg pere.jpg christiantiny.png
  • Mathieu Beirlaen, Jesse Heyninck, Pere Pardo, Christian Straßer,
    Argument Strength in Formal Argumentation,
    IFCOLOG, 5(1), pp. 629–676

    tiny_mathieu.beirlaen.jpg jessetiny.jpg christiantiny.png
  • Mathieu Beirlaen, Jesse Heyninck, and Christian Straßer,
    A Critical Assessment of Pollock’s Accounts of Suppositional Argumentation,

     
    COMMA 2018

    annemarietiny.jpg
  • AnneMarie Borg,
    Equipping sequent-based argumentation,

     
    COMMA 2018

    annemarietiny.jpg christiantiny.png
  • AnneMarie Borg and Christian Straßer,
    Relevance and Contamination in Structured Argumentation,

     
    IJCAI 2018 (acceptance rate 20%)

    pere.jpg
  • P. Pardo, E. Sarrión-Morillo, F. Soler-Toscano and F. R. Velázquez-Quesada,
    Tuning the program transformers from LCC to PDL

     
    Journal of Applied Logics (IfColog Journal of Logics and their Applications) 5(1) pp.71-96

    jessetiny.jpg christiantiny.png
  • Jesse Heyninck and Christian Straßer,
    A Comparative Study of Assumption-Based Approaches to Reasoning with Priorities,

     
    Second Chinese Conference on Logic and Argumentation.

    jessetiny.jpg ofertiny.jpg
  • Jesse Heyninck and Ofer Arieli,
    On the Semantics of Simple Contrapositive Assumption-Based Argumentation Frameworks
    Second Chinese Conference on Logic and Argumentation.

    ofertiny.jpg annemarietiny.jpg christiantiny.png
  • AnneMarie Borg, Ofer Arieli and Christian Straßer,
    Hypersequent-based Argumentation: An Instantiation in the Relevance Logic RM.
    In: Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10757. Springer.

    annemarietiny.jpg ofertiny.jpg
  • AnneMarie Borg, Ofer Arieli,
    Hypersequential Argumentation Frameworks: An Instantiation in the Modal Logic S5,
    AAMAS 2018 (acceptance rate 25%).

    ofertiny.jpg annemarietiny.jpg christiantiny.png
  • Ofer Arieli, AnneMarie Borg, Christian Straßer,
    Prioritized Sequent-Based Argumentation
    AAMAS 2018 (acceptance rate 25%).

    danielftiny.png tiny_dunja._e_elja.jpg
  • Daniel Frey and Dunja Šešelja,
    Robustness and Idealizations in Agent-Based Models of Scientific Interaction,
    British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

    danielftiny.png tiny_dunja._e_elja.jpg
  • Daniel Frey and Dunja Šešelja,
    What is the Epistemic Function of Highly Idealized Agent-Based Models of Scientific Inquiry?,
    Philosophy of the Social Sciences.

2017

jessetiny.jpg pere.jpg christiantiny.png
  • Jesse Heyninck, Pere Pardo, Christian Straßer,
    Assumption-Based Approaches to Reasoning with Priorities,
    Proceedings of AI3.

    tiny_dunja._e_elja.jpg
  • Dunja Seselja,
    Scientific Pluralism and Inconsistency Toleration,
    Humana Menta, Issue 32, 2017 link

    In this paper I examine the problem of inconsistency toleration in the context of scientific pluralism. I argue that, first of all, the notion of in consistency toleration has to be qualified with respect to the evaluative attitude that one takes towards a given scientific theory or theories. Second, I show which types of inconsistency toleration are compatible with two major approaches to scientific pluralism, the so-called modest and the radical one. In view of this I suggest some points of demarcation between these two approaches.

    annemarietiny.jpg danielftiny.png tiny_dunja._e_elja.jpg christiantiny.png
  • AnneMarie Borg, Daniel Frey, Dunja Seselja, and Christian Straßer,
    Epistemic effects of scientific interaction: approaching the question with an argumentative agent-based model,
    special issue on “Agent Based Modelling across Social Science, Economics, and Philosophy” in Historical Social Research.

    tiny_mathieu.beirlaen.jpg
  • Mathieu Beirlaen,
    Combining Inductive Generalization and Factual Abduction,
    DARe 2017 proceedings. link

    The aim of this paper is to outline a first-order model for ampliative reasoning that fruitfully combines the inference patterns of inductive generalization and factual abduction. The pattern of inductive generalization is the archetype pattern of inductive inference by which we arrive at a universally quantified statement (All Ps are Q) given one or more instances (Some Ps are Q). In factual abduction, we reason from a universally quantified statement (All Ps are Q) and an instance of its consequent (object a is Q) to an instance of its antecedent (object a is P). It is shown how these patterns can be combined in such a way that inductively inferred generalizations can be used as premises in abductive inferences, and that conclusions of abductive inferences in turn can be used to inductively infer new generalizations. This process is formally explicated within the adaptive logics framework in terms of a preferential model semantics.

    jessetiny.jpg tiny_mathieu.beirlaen.jpg christiantiny.png
  • Mathieu Beirlaen, Jesse Heyninck, and Christian Straßer,
    Structured Argumentation with Prioritized Conditional Obligations and Permissions,
    Studia Logica.

    We present a formal argumentation system for dealing with the detachment of prioritized conditional obligations and permissions. In the presence of facts and constraints, we answer the question whether an unconditional obligation or permission is detachable by considering arguments for and against its detachment. For the evaluation of arguments in favour of detachment, we use a Dung-style argumentation-theoretical semantics. We illustrate how violations and contrary-to-duty scenarios are dealt with in our framework, and pay special attention to conflict-resolution via priorities.

    annemarietiny.jpg ofertiny.jpg christiantiny.png
  • Ofer Arieli, AnneMarie Borg, and Christian Straßer,
    Hypersequent-based Argumentation: An Instantiation in the Relevance Logic RM,
    Proceedings of TAFA 2017 (The 2017 International Workshop on Theory and Applications of Formal Argument).

    In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning by means of logic-based argumentation. These frameworks are an extension of sequent-based argu- mentation frameworks, in which arguments are represented not only by sequents, but by more general expressions, called hypersequents. This generalization allows us to overcome some of the weaknesses of logical argumentation reported in the literature and to prove several desirable properties, stated in terms of rationality postulates. For this, we take the relevance logic RM as the deductive base of our formalism. This logic is regarded as “by far the best understood of the Anderson-Belnap style systems” (Dunn & Restall, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol.6). It has a clear semantics in terms of Sugihara matrices, as well as sound and com- plete Hilbert- and Gentzen-type proof systems. The latter are defined by hypersequents and admit cut elimination. We show that hypersequent-based argumentation yields a robust defeasible variant of RM with many desirable properties.

    annemarietiny.jpg danielftiny.png tiny_dunja._e_elja.jpg christiantiny.png
  • AnneMarie Borg, Daniel Frey, Dunja Seselja, and Christian Straßer,
    Examining Network Effects in an Argumentative Agent-Based Model of Scientific Inquiry,
    Forthcoming in the FoLLI Series on Logic, Language and Information, Springer.

    jessetiny.jpg christiantiny.png
  • Jesse Heyninck and Christian Straßer,
    Revisiting Unrestricted Rebut and Preferences in Structured Argumentation.,
    IJCAI 2017

    jessetiny.jpg
  • Jesse Heyninck, Peter Verdée and Albrecht Heeffer,
    Handling Inconsistencies in the Early Calculus An Adaptive Logic for the Design of Chunk and Permeate Structures,
    Journal of Philosophical Logic, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-017-9436-z. link

    jessetiny.jpg tiny_mathieu.beirlaen.jpg christiantiny.png
  • Mathieu Beirlaen, Jesse Heyninck, and Christian Straßer,
    Reasoning by Cases in Structured Argumentation
    in KRR/SAC 2017

    ofertiny.jpg annemarietiny.jpg christiantiny.png
  • Ofer Arieli, Annemarie Borg, and Christian Straßer,
    Argumentative Approaches to Reasoning with Consistent Subsets of Premises,
    Proceedings of IEA/AIE’2017, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence series, Springer

    annemarietiny.jpg annemarietiny.jpg christiantiny.png
  • Annemarie Borg, Daniel Frey, Dunja Seselja and Christian Straßer,
    An argumentative agent-based model of scientific inquiry,
    Proceedings of IEA/AIE’2017, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence series, Springer (poster paper)

2016

pere.jpg
  • Hans van Ditmarsch, Jan van Eijck, Pere Pardo, Rahim Ramezanian,
    Epistemic protocols for dynamic gossip,
    Journal of Applied Logic, online first

    ofertiny.jpg christiantiny.png
  • Ofer Arieli and Christian Straßer,
    /Deductive argumentation by enhanced sequent calculi and dynamic derivations/,
    Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 323, 21–37.

    jessetiny.jpg christiantiny.png
  • Jesse Heyninck and Christian Straßer,
    Relations between assumption-based approaches in nonmonotonic logic and formal argumentation,
    Proceedings of NMR2016. pdf

    ofertiny.jpg christiantiny.png
  • Ofer Arieli and Christian Straßer,
    Argumentative Approaches to Reasoning with Maximal Consistency,
    Proceedings of KR16

    tiny_mathieu.beirlaen.jpg christiantiny.png
  • Mathieu Beirlaen and Christian Straßer,
    A structured argumentation framework for detaching conditional obligations,
    Proceedings of DEON 2016

    tiny_mathieu.beirlaen.jpg
  • Mathieu Beirlaen and Matthieu Fontaine,
    Inconsistency-Adaptive Dialogical Logic,
    Forthcoming in Logica Universalis

     

    christiantiny.png fretiny.jpg
  • Christian Straßer and Frederik Van de Putte,
    Proof Theories for superpositions of adaptive logics,
    Forthcoming in Logique et Analyse

    christiantiny.png tiny_mathieu.beirlaen.jpg fretiny.jpg
  • Christian Straßer, Mathieu Beirlaen, and Frederik Van De Putte,
    Adaptive Characterizations of Input/Output Logic,
    Studia Logica, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11225-016-9656-1

Selected publications, 2014–2015

Kuznets-tiny.jpg annemarietiny.jpg
  • Roman Kuznets and AnneMarie Borg,
    Realization Theorems for Justification Logics: Full Modularity,
    Proceedings of Tableaux 2015 (Wroclaw, Poland)

    ofertiny.jpg christiantiny.png
  • Ofer Arieli and Christian Straßer,
    Sequent-Based Logical Argumentation,
    Argument & Computation, Volume 6, Issue 1, 2015

    christiantiny.png ofertiny.jpg
  • Christian Straßer and Ofer Arieli,
    Normative Reasoning by Sequent-Based Argumentation,
    Journal of Logic and Computation (special issue on the DEON 2014 conference)

    christiantiny.png tiny_g_aldo.antonelli.jpg
  • Christian Straßer and Aldo Antonelli,
    Nonmonotonic Logic,
    Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

    tiny_dunja._e_elja.jpg christiantiny.png
  • Dunja Šešelja and Christian Straßer,
    Concerning Peter Vickers’ Recent Treatment of ‘Paraconsistencitis’: Review article of Peter Vickers,
    Understanding Inconsistent Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. xii + 273 pp.

    tiny_mathieu.beirlaen.jpg tiny_atocha.aliseda.jpg
  • Mathieu Beirlaen and Atocha Aliseda,
    A conditional logic for abduction,
    Synthese, Volume 191, Issue 15, pages 3733-3758, 2014

    tiny_mathieu.beirlaen.jpg
  • Mathieu Beirlaen,
    A Regress Objection to Thagard’s Theory of Deductive Coherence,
    Erkenntnis, 2014

    tiny_mathieu.beirlaen.jpg christiantiny.png
  • Mathieu Beirlaen and Christian Straßer,
    /Non-Monotonic Reasoning with Normative Conflicts in Multi-Agent Deontic Logic/,
    Journal of Logic and Computation, Volume 24, Issue 6, pages 1179-1207, 2014.

    ofertiny.jpg christiantiny.png
  • Ofer Arieli, Christian Straßer,
    Dynamic Derivations for Sequent-Based Deductive Argumentation,
    Computational Models of Argument (Ed. S. Parsons, COMMA14) in the series Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, IOS Press, pp. 89–100, 2014

    christiantiny.png ofertiny.jpg
  • Christian Straßer, Ofer Arieli,
    Sequent-Based Argumentation for Normative Reasoning,
    Deontic Logic and Normative Systems (Ed. Fabrizio Cariani, Davide Grossi, Joke Meheus, Xavier Parent) in the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, pp. 224–240, 2014

    christiantiny.png
  • Christian Straßer,
    Adaptive Logic and Defeasible Reasoning. Applications in Argumentation, Normative Reasoning and Default Reasoning,
    Trends in Logic-series on Springer, Volume 38, 2014