Progressive Defeat Paths in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks

نویسندگان

  • Diego C. Martínez
  • Alejandro Javier García
  • Guillermo Ricardo Simari
چکیده

Abstract argumentation systems are formalisms for defeasible reasoning where some components remain unspecified, the structure of arguments being the main abstraction. In the dialectical process carried out to identify accepted arguments in the system some controversial situations may appear. These relate to the reintroduction of arguments into the process which cause the onset of circularity. This must be avoided in order to prevent an infinite analysis. Some systems apply the sole restriction of not allowing the introduction of previously considered arguments in an argumentation line. However, repeating an argument is not the only possible cause for the risk mentioned. A more specific restriction needs to be applied considering the existence of subarguments. In this work, we introduce an extended argumentation framework where two kinds of defeat relation are present, and a definition for progressive defeat path.

برای دانلود رایگان 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

On Acceptability in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks with an Extended Defeat Relation

Defeat between arguments is established by a combination of two basic elements: a conflict or defeat relation, and a preference relation on the arguments involved in this conflict. We present a new abstract framework for argumentation where two kinds of defeat are present, depending on the outcome of the preference relation: an argument may be a proper defeater or a blocking defeater of another...

متن کامل

Strong and weak forms of abstract argument defense

Extended abstract frameworks separate conflicts and preference between arguments. These elements are combined to induce argument defeat relations. A proper defeat is consequence of preferring an argument in a conflicting pair, while blocking defeat is consequence of incomparable or equivalent-in-strength conflicting arguments. As arguments interact with different strengths, the quality of sever...

متن کامل

Abstract Rule-Based Argumentation

Rule-Based Argumentation Sanjay Modgil, Henry Prakken abstract. This chapter reviews abstract rule-based approaches to argumentation, in particular the ASPIC framework. In ASPIC and its This chapter reviews abstract rule-based approaches to argumentation, in particular the ASPIC framework. In ASPIC and its predecessors, going back to the seminal work of John Pollock, arguments can be formed by ...

متن کامل

An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments

An abstract framework for structured arguments is presented that instantiates Dung’s (1995) abstract argumentation frameworks. Arguments are defined as inference trees formed by applying two kinds of inference rules: strict and defeasible rules. This naturally leads to three ways of attacking an argument: attacking a premise, attacking a conclusion and attacking an inference. To resolve such at...

متن کامل

Coalitional games for abstract argumentation1

In this work we address the issue of uncertainty in abstract argumentation. We propose a way to compute the relative relevance of arguments by merging the classical argumentation framework proposed in [5] into a game theoretic coalitional setting, where the worth of a collection of arguments can be seen as the combination of the information concerning the defeat relation and the preferences ove...

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

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2006