Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation via the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation

نویسندگان

  • Bas van Gijzel
  • Henry Prakken
چکیده

Carneades is a recently proposed formalism for structured argumentation with varying proof standards, inspired by legal reasoning but more generally applicable. Its distinctive feature is that each statement can be given its own proof standard, which is claimed to allow a more natural account of reasoning under burden of proof than existing formalisms for structured argumentation, in which proof standards are defined globally. In this article the two formalisms are formally related by translating Carneades into the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation. Since ASPIC+ is defined to generate Dung-style abstract argumentation frameworks, this in effect translates Carneades graphs into abstract argumentation frameworks. For this translation, we prove a formal correspondence and show that certain rationality postulates hold. It is furthermore proven that Carneades always induces a unique Dung extension, which is the same in all of Dung’s semantics, allowing us to generalise Carneades to cycle-containing structures.

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Relating Carneades with Abstract Argumentation

Carneades is a recently proposed formalism for structured argumentation with varying proof standards. An open question is its relation with Dung’s seminal abstract approach to argumentation. In this paper the two formalisms are formally related by translating Carneades into ASPIC, another recently proposed formalism for structured argumentation. Since ASPIC is defined to generate Dungstyle abst...

متن کامل

Thesis for the degree of Master of Science Relating proof standards and abstract argumentation

The basic idea of argumentation is to construct arguments in favour of and against a certain statement, selecting the acceptable arguments, and in the end determining which statements hold. To explain how arguments defend their position, they can be structured by their used knowledge and rules. Several approaches to structured argumentation have been developed and subsequently related through a...

متن کامل

On modelling burdens and standards of proof in structured argumentation

A formal model is proposed of argumentation with burdens and standards of proof, overcoming shortcomings of earlier work. The model is based on a distinction between default and inverted burdens of proof. This distinction is formalised by adapting the definition of defeat of the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation. Since ASPIC+ generates abstract argumentation frameworks, the model is...

متن کامل

Reasoning about Preferences in Structured Extended Argumentation Frameworks

This paper combines two recent extensions of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks in order to define an abstract formalism for reasoning about preferences in structured argumentation frameworks. First, extended argumentation frameworks extend Dung frameworks with attacks on attacks, thus providing an abstract dialectical semantics that accommodates argumentation-based reasoning about prefer...

متن کامل

Relating ways to instantiate abstract argumentation frameworks

This paper studies the relation between various ways to instantiate Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks. First the ASPIC framework, which explicitly generates abstract argumentation frameworks, is equivalently reformulated in terms of John Pollock’s recursive labelling method, which does not explicitly generate such frameworks. The reformulation arguably facilitates more natural explanatio...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

عنوان ژورنال:
  • Argument & Computation

دوره 3  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2012