Modelling Time and Reliability in Structured Argumentation Frameworks
نویسندگان
چکیده
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 area has led to Temporal Argumentation Frameworks (TAF) that extend Dung’s by considering the temporal availability of arguments. In this work we introduce a novel framework, called Extended Temporal Argumentation Framework (E-TAF), extending TAF with the capability of modeling availability of attacks among arguments, which allows for instance to model reliability of arguments varying over time. We show how E-TAF can be enriched by considering Structured Abstract Argumentation, adding compositional elements to the abstract arguments involved based on a simplified version of the recently introduced Dynamic Argumentation Frameworks.
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 کاملAbstract Argumentation Scheme Frameworks
Argumentation Scheme Frameworks Katie Atkinson and Trevor Bench-Capon Department of Computer Science University of Liverpool Liverpool L69 3BX UK {K.M.Atkinson,tbc}@liverpool.ac.uk Abstract. This paper presents an approach to modelling and reasoning about arguments that exploits and combines two of the most popular mechanisms used within computational modelling of argumentation: argumentation s...
متن کاملOn modelling burdens and standards of proof in structured argumentation
A formal model is proposed of argumentation with burdens and standards of proof, overcoming shortcomings of earlier work. The model is based on a distinction between default and inverted burdens of proof. This distinction is formalised by adapting the definition of defeat of the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation. Since ASPIC+ generates abstract argumentation frameworks, the model is...
متن کاملFormalizing Balancing Arguments
Dung intended his abstract argument frameworks to be used for modeling a particular form of human argumentation, where arguments attack each other and are evaluated following the principle summarized by “The one who has the last word laughs best.” However this form does not fit a wide class of arguments, which is arguably more prototypical and common in human argumentation, namely arguments whe...
متن کاملClassification and strategical issues of argumentation games on structured argumentation frameworks
This paper aims at giving a classification of argumentation games agents play within a multi-agent setting. We investigate different scenarios of such argumentation games that differ in the protocol used for argumentation, i. e. direct, synchronous, and dialectical argumentation protocols, the awareness that agents have on other agents beliefs, and different settings for the preferences of agen...
متن کامل