Reasoning about Preferences in Structured Extended Argumentation Frameworks
نویسندگان
چکیده
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 preferences over arguments. Second, a recent extension of the ASPIC framework (ASPIC+) instantiates Dung frameworks with accounts of the structure of arguments, the nature of attack and the use of preferences to resolve attacks. In this paper, ASPIC+ is further developed in order to define attacks on attacks, resulting in a dialectical semantics that accommodates argumentation based reasoning about preferences in structured argumentation. Then, some recently proposed rationality postulates for structured extended argumentation are proven to hold.
منابع مشابه
Integrating Object and Meta-Level Value Based Argumentation
A recent extension to Dung’s argumentation framework allows for arguments to express preferences between other arguments. Value based argumentation can be formalised in this extended framework, enabling meta-level argumentation about the values that arguments promote, and the orderings on these values. In this paper, we show how extended frameworks integrating meta-level reasoning about values ...
متن کاملLabellings and Games for Extended Argumentation Frameworks
Dung’s abstract theory of argumentation has become established as a general framework for various species of non-monotonic reasoning, and reasoning in the presence of conflict. A Dung framework consists of arguments related by attacks, and the extensions of a framework, and so the status of arguments, are defined under different semantics. Developments of Dung’s work have also defined argument ...
متن کاملModelling Time and Reliability in Structured Argumentation Frameworks
Argumentation is a human-like reasoning mechanism contributing to the formalization of commonsense reasoning. In the last decade, several argument-based formalisms have emerged, with application in many areas, such as legal reasoning, autonomous agents and multi-agent systems; many are based on Dung’s seminal work characterizing Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AF). Recent research in the are...
متن کاملAudiences in argumentation frameworks
Although reasoning about what is the case has been the historic focus of logic, reasoning about what should be done is an equally important capacity for an intelligent agent. Reasoning about what to do in a given situation termed practical reasoning in the philosophical literature has important differences from reasoning about what is the case. The acceptability of an argument for an action tur...
متن کاملIntegrating Dialectical and Accrual Modes of Argumentation
This paper argues that accrual should be modelled in terms of reasoning about the application of preferences to sets of arguments, and shows how such reasoning can be formalised within metalevel argumentation frameworks. These frameworks adopt the same machinery and level of abstraction as Dung’s argumentation framework. We thus provide a dialectical argumentation semantics that integrates accr...
متن کامل