{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02385496183206107, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0028625954198473282, 'mean_word_length': 4.9602272727272725, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Rationality Postulates: Applying Argumentation Theory for Non-monotonic Reasoning

The current book chapter examines how to apply Dung’s 
theory of abstract argumentation to define meaningful forms of nonmonotonic 
inference. The idea is that arguments are constructed using 
strict and defeasible inference rules, and that it is then examined 
how these arguments attack (or defeat) each other. The thus defined 
argumentation framework provides the basis for applying Dung-style semantics, 
yielding a number of extensions of arguments. As each of the 
constructed arguments has a conclusion, an extension of arguments has 
an associated extension of conclusions. It are these extensions of conclusions 
that we are interested in. In particular, we ask ourselves whether 
each of these extensions is (1) consistent, (2) closed under the strict inference 
rules and (3) free from undesired interference. We examine the 
current generation of techniques to satisfy these properties, and identify 
some research issues that are yet to be dealt with.