Generalizing Abstract Argumentation with Nested Attacks
نویسنده
چکیده
In this paper Dung’s abstract argumentation framework (cp. [23]) is being generalized by introducing nested attacks. Attacks are allowed not only on single arguments (e.g. a → b), but on the attacks themselves as well (a → (b → c)). Key terms of Dung’s account of abstract argumentation are adjusted for nested argumentation frameworks (henceforth NAF) in a way which preserves their original meaning. In addition, the proof theory based on adaptive logics for abstract argumentation introduced in [32] for NAFs is being extended and adjusted for nested attacks.
منابع مشابه
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 کاملOn support relations in abstract argumentation as abstractions of inferential relations
Arguably the significance of an abstract model of argumentation depends on the range of realistic instantiations it allows. This paper therefore investigates for three frameworks for abstract argumentation with support relations whether they can be instantiated with the ASPIC framework for structured argumentation. Both evidential argumentation systems and a simple extension of Dung’s abstract ...
متن کاملInductive Defense for Sceptical Semantics of Extended Argumentation
An abstract argumentation framework may have many extensions. Which extension should be adopted as the semantics depends on the sceptical attitudes of the reasoners. Different degrees of scepticism lead to different semantics ranging from the grounded extension as the most sceptical semantics to preferred extensions as the least sceptical semantics. Extending abstract argumentation to allow att...
متن کاملEncompassing Attacks to Attacks in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
In the traditional definition of Dung’s abstract argumentation framework (AF ), the notion of attack is understood as a relation between arguments, thus bounding attacks to start from and be directed to arguments. This paper introduces a generalized definition of abstract argumentation framework called AFRA (Argumentation Framework with Recursive Attacks), where an attack is allowed to be direc...
متن کاملExtending Social Abstract Argumentation with Votes on Attacks
Social abstract argumentation laid theoretical foundations for future online debating systems with formal backbones and semantics. The advantage of these envisioned new systems is their capability of formally justifying the social outcomes of their debates. Many recent extensions proposed for argumentation in general have addressed the issue that not all attacks between arguments are equal, esp...
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 2009