References of "Weydert, Emil 50003328"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailConditional Inference Trees - Proxies for real-world arguments
Weydert, Emil UL

Scientific Conference (2018)

Detailed reference viewed: 25 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailA walk through a hidden zoo - Semantics for argument and attack strength
Weydert, Emil UL

Scientific Conference (2018)

Detailed reference viewed: 23 (3 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailWhat is an argument? Nature and necessity of generalized arguments.
Weydert, Emil UL

Scientific Conference (2018)

Detailed reference viewed: 21 (0 UL)
Full Text
See detailABCDE Tutorial LuxLogAI 2018 - Default entailment course
Weydert, Emil UL

Scientific Conference (2018)

Detailed reference viewed: 22 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailA Multiverse Axiom Induction Framework
Weydert, Emil UL

in Symposium on the Theoretical Foundations of Mathematics III (2015, September 23)

A MULTIVERSE AXIOM INDUCTION FRAMEWORK The multiverse paradigm in set theory does not only reflect philosophical preferences, or set up a new playground for mathematical investigation, but it also offers ... [more ▼]

A MULTIVERSE AXIOM INDUCTION FRAMEWORK The multiverse paradigm in set theory does not only reflect philosophical preferences, or set up a new playground for mathematical investigation, but it also offers a powerful methodological tool for investigating the conceptual foundations of set theory by guiding the search for and the evaluation of new set-theoretic axioms or facts. The prototypical example is Friedman's Hyperuniverse Program (HUP). Our goal is to develop an abstract inferential framework generalizing the HUP whose (defeasible, inductive) inference methods are meant to identify or validate new axioms. We consider nonmonotonic consequence relations |~, parametrized by specifications of the multiverse and set-theoretic desiderata, which associate with any suitable ZFC + X new - not necessarily classically derivable - candidate truths. The desiderata could, for instance, consist of consistency conditions or maximization demands w.r.t. preorders over universes. There are a number of possible inductive strategies, but it doesn't seem that conceptual considerations at the level of set theory are sufficient to decide among them. The idea is therefore to also assess the inferential level and to use rationality postulates for nonmonotonic inference, heavily investigated within AI for modeling commonsense reasoning, to classify and evaluate such procedures. This is however a non-trivial task because of the special characteristics of axiom induction. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 75 (21 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailA Plausibility Semantics for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
Weydert, Emil UL

in Konieczny, Sébastien; Tompits, Hans (Eds.) Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2014) (2014)

We propose and investigate a simple ranking-measure-based extension semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks based on their generic instantiation by default knowledge bases and the ranking ... [more ▼]

We propose and investigate a simple ranking-measure-based extension semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks based on their generic instantiation by default knowledge bases and the ranking construction semantics for default reasoning. In this context, we consider the path from structured to logical to shallow semantic instantiations. The resulting well-justified JZ-extension semantics diverges from more traditional approaches. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 41 (11 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailOn the plausibility of abstract arguments
Weydert, Emil UL

in van der Gaag, Linda (Ed.) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (2013)

Detailed reference viewed: 78 (24 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailConditional Ranking Revision - Iterated Revision with Sets of Conditionals
Weydert, Emil UL

in Journal of Philosophical Logic (2012), 41(1), 237-271

In the context of a general framework for belief dynamics which interprets revision as doxastic constraint satisfaction, we discuss a proposal for revising quasi-probabilistic belief measures with finite ... [more ▼]

In the context of a general framework for belief dynamics which interprets revision as doxastic constraint satisfaction, we discuss a proposal for revising quasi-probabilistic belief measures with finite sets of graded conditionals. The belief states are ranking measures with divisible values (generalizing Spohn's epistemology), and the conditionals are interpreted as ranking constraints. The approach is inspired by the minimal information paradigm and based on the principle-guided canonical construction of a ranking model of the input conditionals. This is achieved by extending techniques known from conditional default reasoning. We give an overview of how it handles different principles for conditional and parallel revision and compare it with similar accounts. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 51 (4 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailOn the Acceptability of Incompatible Arguments
Kaci, Souhila UL; van der Torre, Leon UL; Weydert, Emil UL

in Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, 9th European Conference, ECSQARU 2007, Hammamet, Tunisia, October 31 – November 2, 2007, Proceedings (2007)

In this paper we study the acceptability of incompatible arguments within Dung’s abstract argumentation framework. As an example we introduce an instance of Dung’s framework where arguments are ... [more ▼]

In this paper we study the acceptability of incompatible arguments within Dung’s abstract argumentation framework. As an example we introduce an instance of Dung’s framework where arguments are represented by propositional formulas and an argument attacks another one when the conjunction of their representations is inconsistent, which we characterize as a kind of symmetric attack. Since symmetric attack is known to have the drawback to collapse the various argumentation semantics, we consider also two variations. First, we consider propositional arguments distinguishing support and conclusion. Second, we introduce a preference ordering over the arguments and we define the attack relation in terms of a symmetric incompatibility relation and the preference relation. We show how to characterize preference-based argumentation using a kind of acyclic attack relation. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 73 (2 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailAcyclic Argumentation: Attack = Conflict + Preference
Kaci, S.; van der Torre, Leon UL; Weydert, Emil UL

in Acyclic Argumentation: Attack = Conflict + Preference (2006)

Detailed reference viewed: 39 (1 UL)