Value Based Argumentation in Hierarchical Argumentation Frameworks
نویسنده
چکیده
Hierarchical argumentation frameworks organise Dung argumentation frameworks into a hierarchy so that argumentation over preference information in a level n Dung framework is used to resolve conflicts between arguments in a level n1 framework. In this paper we formalise and extend value based argumentation [1] in a hierarchical argumentation framework and illustrate application of the resulting framework to argumentation over action.
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 کاملArguments About Values
Arguments are more or less persuasive depending on the values their outcomes promote and demote. This idea, closely related to Perelman’s ideas work on argumentation, has been formally modeled by Bench-Capon in his well-known Value-Based Argumentation Frameworks, based on Dung’s abstract argumentation. In this paper, the question is addressed how arguments about which values are promoted and de...
متن کاملUncontested Semantics for Value-Based Argumentation
We introduce an extension-based semantics for value-based argumentation frameworks (vafs) that provides a counterpart to the recently proposed ideal semantics in standard – i.e. value–free – argumentation frameworks. A significant motivation for this so-called “uncontested semantics” is as a mechanism with which to refine the nature of objective acceptance: thus the set of uncontested arguments...
متن کاملReasoning 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 کاملMerging Deductive and Abductive Knowledge Bases: An Argumentation Context Approach
The consideration of heterogenous knowledge sources for supporting decision making is key to accomplish informed decisions, e.g., about medical diagnosis. Consequently, merging different data from different knowledge bases is a key issue for providing support for decision-making. In this paper, we explore an argumentation context approach, which follows how medical professionals typically reaso...
متن کامل