Semantics for Higher Level Attacks in Extended Argumentation Frames Part 1: Overview
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
Semantics for Higher Level Attacks in Extended Argumentation Frames Part 1: Overview
In 2005 the author introduced networks which allow attacks on attacks of any level. So if a → b reads a attacks b, then this attack can itself be attacked by another node c. This attack itself can attack another node d. This situation can be iterated to any level with attacks and nodes attacking other attacks and other nodes. In this paper we provide semantics (of extensions) to such networks. ...
متن کاملSemantics for Higher Level Attacks in Extended Argumentation Frames
In 2005 the author introduced networks which allow attacks on attacks of any level. So if a → b reads a attacks b, then this attack can itself be attacked by another node c. This attack itself can attack another node d. This situation can be iterated to any level with attacks and nodes attacking other attacks and other nodes. In this paper we provide semantics (of extensions) to such networks. ...
متن کاملAcceptability semantics accounting for strength of attacks in argumentation
We consider argumentation systems taking into account several attack relations of different strength. We focus on the impact of various strength attacks on the semantics of such systems. First, we refine the classical notion of defence, by comparing the strength of an attack with the strength of a counter-attack: an argument C will be a defender of A against B if the attack from B to A is not s...
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 کاملWell-founded argumentation semantics for extended logic programming
This paper defines an argumentation semantics for extended logic programming and shows its equivalence to the well-founded semantics with explicit negation. We set up a general framework in which we extensively compare this semantics to other argumenta-tion semantics, including those of Dung, and Prakken and Sartor. We present a general dialectical proof theory for these argumenta-tion semantics.
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Studia Logica
سال: 2009
ISSN: 0039-3215,1572-8730
DOI: 10.1007/s11225-009-9211-4