Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems
Logic-based argumentation systems are developed for reasoning with inconsistentinformation. Starting from a knowledge base encoded in a logical language, theydefine arguments and attacks between them using the consequence operator asso-ciated with the language. Finally, a semantics is used for evaluating the arguments. In this paper, we focus on systems that are based on deducti...
متن کاملInstantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties
In this paper we investigate the use of classical logic as a basis for instantiating abstract argumentation frameworks. In the first part, we propose desirable properties of attack relations in the form of postulates and classify several well-known attack relations from the literature with regards to the satisfaction of these postulates. Furthermore, we provide additional postulates that help u...
متن کاملa new type-ii fuzzy logic based controller for non-linear dynamical systems with application to 3-psp parallel robot
abstract type-ii fuzzy logic has shown its superiority over traditional fuzzy logic when dealing with uncertainty. type-ii fuzzy logic controllers are however newer and more promising approaches that have been recently applied to various fields due to their significant contribution especially when the noise (as an important instance of uncertainty) emerges. during the design of type- i fuz...
15 صفحه اولRethinking the Rationality Postulates for Argumentation-Based Inference
Much research on structured argumentation aims to satisfy the rationality postulates of direct and indirect consistency and strict (deductive) closure. However, examples like the lottery paradox indicate that it is sometimes rational to accept sets of propositions that are indirectly inconsistent or not deductively closed. This paper proposes a variant of the ASPIC+ framework that violates indi...
متن کاملRationality Postulates: applying argumentation theory for non-monotonic reasoning
The current review paper examines how to apply Dung’s theory of abstract argumentation to define meaningful forms of non-monotonic 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 Dungstyle sema...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
سال: 2014
ISSN: 0888-613X
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijar.2013.10.004