Acceptability Semantics for Weighted Argumentation Frameworks
نویسندگان
چکیده
The paper studies semantics that evaluate arguments in argumentation graphs, where each argument has a basic strength, and may be attacked by other arguments. It starts by defining a set of principles, each of which is a property that a semantics could satisfy. It provides the first formal analysis and comparison of existing semantics. Finally, it defines three novel semantics that satisfy more principles than existing ones.
منابع مشابه
Robust Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks
We suggest a so-called “robust” semantics for a model of argumentation which represents arguments and their interactions, called “argumentation frameworks”. We study a variety of additional definitions of acceptability of arguments; we explore the properties of these definitions; we describe their inter-relationships: e.g. robust models can be characterized using the minimal (well-founded) mode...
متن کاملArgumentation Frameworks with Necessities
In this paper, we introduce argumentation frameworks with necessities (AFNs), an extension of Dung’s argumentation frameworks (AFs) taking into account a necessity relation as a kind of support relation between arguments (an argument is necessary for another). We redefine the acceptability semantics for these extended frameworks and we show how the necessity relation allows a direct and easy co...
متن کاملSymmetric Argumentation Frameworks
This paper is centered on the family of Dung’s finite argumentation frameworks when the attacks relation is symmetric (and nonempty and irreflexive). We show that while this family does not contain any well-founded framework, every element of it is both coherent and relatively grounded. Then we focus on the acceptability problems for the various semantics introduced by Dung, yet generalized to ...
متن کاملOn the theory of argumentation frameworks
argumentation has been developed in a theoretical way, in noteworthy works such as [Tou58], [Fel84], [Dun95], [KT96], [BDKT97], [KMD94], [Pol94], [Vre97], [PS96a], [PS97], and [Ver96]. Argumentation-theoretic interpretations and proof-procedures are applicable in practical reasoning, legal reasoning ([KT96], [PS95]), mediation systems ([GK96], [BG94]), decision-making systems ([KPG96]), and are...
متن کاملFrom Structured to Abstract Argumentation: Assumption-Based Acceptance via AF Reasoning
We study the applicability of abstract argumentation (AF) reasoners in efficiently answering acceptability queries over assumption-based argumentation (ABA) frameworks, one of the prevalent forms of structured argumentation. We provide a refined algorithm for translating ABA frameworks to AFs allowing the use of AF reasoning to answer ABA acceptability queries, covering credulous and skeptical ...
متن کامل