Collapse in Formal Argumentation Systems
نویسنده
چکیده
Over the last decennia, many systems for formal argumentation have been defined. The problem, however, is that these systems do not always satisfy reasonable properties. In this paper, we focus on the particular property that a conflict between two arguments cannot keep other unrelated arguments from becoming justified. Although this property appears obvious, it is in fact violated by several existing argumentation formalisms. In this paper we examine what exactly goes wrong and how things can be improved.
منابع مشابه
On Natural Language Generation of Formal Argumentation
In this paper we provide a first analysis of the research questions that arise when dealing with the problem of communicating pieces of formal argumentation through natural language interfaces. It is a generally held opinion that formal models of argumentation naturally capture human argument, and some preliminary studies have focused on justifying this view. Unfortunately, the results are not ...
متن کاملModeling Lateral Communication in Holonic Multi Agent Systems
Agents, in a multi agent system, communicate with each other through the process of exchanging messages which is called dialogue. Multi agent organization is generally used to optimize agents’ communications. Holonic organization demonstrates a self-similar recursive and hierarchical structure in which each holon may include some other holons. In a holonic system, lateral communication occurs b...
متن کاملHybrid argumentation systems for structured news reports
Numerous argumentation systems have been proposed in the literature. Yet there often appears to be a shortfall between proposed systems and possible applications. In other words, there seems to be a need for further development of proposals for argumentation systems before they can be used widely in decision-support or knowledge management. We believe that this shortfall can be bridged by takin...
متن کاملRelations between assumption-based approaches in nonmonotonic logic and formal argumentation
In this paper we make a contribution to the unification of formal models of defeasible reasoning. We present several translations between formal argumentation frameworks and nonmonotonic logics for reasoning with plausible assumptions. More specifically, we translate adaptive logics into assumption-based argumentation and ASPIC, ASPIC into assumption-based argumentation and a fragment of assump...
متن کاملContamination in Formal Argumentation Systems
Over the last decennia, many systems for formal argumentation have been defined. The problem, however, is that these systems do not always satisfy reasonable properties. In this paper, we focus on the particular property that a conflict between two arguments cannot keep other unrelated arguments from becoming justified. Although this property appears obvious, it is in fact violated by several e...
متن کامل