Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties
نویسندگان
چکیده
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 us prove characterisation results for these attack relations. In the second part of the paper, we present postulates regarding the logical content of extensions of argument graphs that may be constructed with classical logic. We then conduct a comprehensive study of the status of these postulates in the context of the various combinations of attack relations and extension semantics.
منابع مشابه
Revisiting Preferences and Argumentation
The ASPIC framework is intermediate in abstraction between Dung’s argumentation framework and concrete instantiating logics. This paper generalises ASPIC to accommodate classical logic instantiations, and adopts a new proposal for evaluating extensions: attacks are used to define the notion of conflict-free sets, while the defeats obtained by applying preferences to attacks, are exclusively use...
متن کاملA general account of argumentation with preferences
This paper builds on the recent ASPIC formalism, to develop a general framework for argumentation with preferences. We motivate a revised definition of conflict free sets of arguments, adapt ASPIC to accommodate a broader range of instantiating logics, and show that under some assumptions, the resulting framework satisfies key properties and rationality postulates. We then show that the general...
متن کاملMeta-Argumentation Modelling I: Methodology and Techniques
In this paper, we introduce the methodology and techniques of metaargumentation to model argumentation. The methodology of meta-argumentation instantiates Dung’s abstract argumentation theory with an extended argumentation theory, and is thus based on a combination of the methodology of instantiating abstract arguments, and the methodology of extending Dung’s basic argumentation frameworks with...
متن کاملClassical Logic, Argumentation and Dialectic
A well studied instantiation of Dung’s abstract theory of argumentation yields argumentation-based characterisations of non-monotonic inference over possibly inconsistent sets of classical formulae. This provides for single-agent reasoning in terms of argument and counter-argument, and distributed non-monotonic reasoning in the form of dialogues between computational and or human agents. Howeve...
متن کاملCombining Paraconsistent Logic with Argumentation
One tradition in the logical study of argumentation is to allow for arguments that combine strict and defeasible inference rules, and to derive the strict inference rules from a logic at least as strong as classical logic. An unsolved problem in this tradition is how the trivialising effect of the classical Ex Falso principle can be avoided when two arguments that use defeasible rules have cont...
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:
- Artif. Intell.
دوره 175 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2011