Preferential model and argumentation semantics
نویسنده
چکیده
Although the preferential model semantics is the standard semantics for non-monotonic reasoning systems, it is not used for argumentation frameworks. For argumentation frameworks, instead, argumentation semantics are used. This paper studies the relation between the two types of semantics. Several argumentation semantics are related to additional constraints on the preference relation over states in the preferential model semantics. Moreover, based on the preferential model semantics a new argumentation semantics is proposed.
منابع مشابه
Preferential Reasoning Based On Abstract Argumentation Semantics
We introduce a preferential-based setting for reasoning with different types of argumentation-based semantics, including those that are not necessarily conflict-free or admissible. The induced entailments are defined by n-valued labeling and may be computed by answer-set programs.
متن کاملNonmonotonicity and Partiality in Defeasible Argumentation*
This chapter is concerned with nonmonotonicity and partiality in the theory of defeasible argumentation. In this theory, a defeasible proof (or argument) establishes warrant for a conclusion only if it is not defeated by better counterarguments. We introduce a formal theory of argumentation, in which the notion of abstract argumentation system is paramount. After that, we discuss the significan...
متن کاملRelations between assumption-based approaches in nonmonotonic logic and formal argumentation
In this paper we make a contribution to the unification of formal models of defeasible reasoning. We present several translations between formal argumentation frameworks and nonmonotonic logics for reasoning with plausible assumptions. More specifically, we translate adaptive logics into assumption-based argumentation and ASPIC, ASPIC into assumption-based argumentation and a fragment of assump...
متن کاملA General Schema For Generating Argumentation Semantics From Logic Programming Semantics
In this paper, by considering the idea that argumentation semantics can be viewed as a special form of logic programming semantics with negation as failure, we show that any logic programming semantics as the stable model semantics, the minimal models, etc., can define candidate argumentation semantics. These new argumentation semantics will overcome some of the problems of the Dung’s argumenta...
متن کاملIdeal extensions as logical programming models
We show that the ideal sets of an argumentation framework can be characterized by two kinds of logical models: ideal models (2-valued logical models) and p-stable models (2-valued logical models). We also show that the maximal ideal set of an argumentation framework can be characterized by the well-founded+ model (a 3-valued logical model). These results argue for the logical foundations of the...
متن کامل