Acceptability in Timed Frameworks with Intermittent Arguments
نویسندگان
چکیده
In this work we formalize a natural expansion of timed argumentation frameworks by considering arguments that are available with (possibly) some repeated interruptions in time, called intermittent arguments. This framework is used as a modelization of argumentation dynamics. The notion of acceptability of arguments is analyzed as the framework evolves through time, and an algorithm for computing intervals of argument defense is introduced.
منابع مشابه
On semantics in dynamic argumentation frameworks
A Timed Abstract Argumentation Framework is a novel formalism where arguments are only valid for consideration in a given period of time, which is defined for every individual argument. Thus, the attainability of attacks and defenses is related to time, and the outcome of the framework may vary accordingly. In this work we study the notion of stable extensions applied to timed-arguments. The fr...
متن کاملArgumentation Frameworks with Necessities
In this paper, we introduce argumentation frameworks with necessities (AFNs), an extension of Dung’s argumentation frameworks (AFs) taking into account a necessity relation as a kind of support relation between arguments (an argument is necessary for another). We redefine the acceptability semantics for these extended frameworks and we show how the necessity relation allows a direct and easy co...
متن کاملRobust Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks
We suggest a so-called “robust” semantics for a model of argumentation which represents arguments and their interactions, called “argumentation frameworks”. We study a variety of additional definitions of acceptability of arguments; we explore the properties of these definitions; we describe their inter-relationships: e.g. robust models can be characterized using the minimal (well-founded) mode...
متن کاملSymmetric Argumentation Frameworks
This paper is centered on the family of Dung’s finite argumentation frameworks when the attacks relation is symmetric (and nonempty and irreflexive). We show that while this family does not contain any well-founded framework, every element of it is both coherent and relatively grounded. Then we focus on the acceptability problems for the various semantics introduced by Dung, yet generalized to ...
متن کاملA Normal Form for Argumentation Frameworks
We study formal argumentation frameworks as introduced by Dung (1995). We show that any such argumentation framework can be syntactically augmented into a normal form (having a simplified attack relation), preserving the semantic properties of original arguments. An argumentation framework is in normal form if no argument attacks a conflicting pair of arguments. An augmentation of an argumentat...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2011