Defense semantics of argumentation: encoding reasons for accepting arguments
نویسندگان
چکیده
In this paper we show how the defense relation among abstract arguments can be used to encode the reasons for accepting arguments. After introducing a novel notion of defenses and defense graphs, we propose a defense semantics together with a new notion of defense equivalence of argument graphs, and compare defense equivalence with standard equivalence and strong equivalence, respectively. Then, based on defense semantics, we define two kinds of reasons for accepting arguments, i.e., direct reasons and root reasons, and a notion of root equivalence of argument graphs. Finally, we show how the notion of root equivalence can be used in argumentation summarization.
منابع مشابه
Argumentation Semantics for Prioritised Default Logic
We endow prioritised default logic (PDL) with argumentation semantics using the ASPIC framework for structured argumentation, and prove that the conclusions of the justified arguments are exactly the prioritised default extensions. Argumentation semantics for PDL will allow for the application of argument game proof theories to the process of inference in PDL, making the reasons for accepting a...
متن کاملPrioritised Default Logic as Rational Argumentation
We endow Brewka’s prioritised default logic (PDL) with argumentation semantics using the ASPIC framework for structured argumentation. We prove that the conclusions of the justified arguments correspond to the prioritised default extensions in a normatively rational manner. Argumentation semantics for PDL will allow for the application of argument game proof theories to the process of inference...
متن کاملThe Outcomes of Logic-Based Argumentation Systems under Preferred Semantics
Logic-based argumentation systems are developed for reasoning with inconsistent information. They consist of a set of arguments, attacks among them and a semantics for the evaluation of arguments. Preferred semantics is favored in the literature since it ensures the existence of extensions (i.e., acceptable sets of arguments), and it guarantees a kind of maximality, accepting thus arguments whe...
متن کاملInductive Defense for Sceptical Semantics of Extended Argumentation
An abstract argumentation framework may have many extensions. Which extension should be adopted as the semantics depends on the sceptical attitudes of the reasoners. Different degrees of scepticism lead to different semantics ranging from the grounded extension as the most sceptical semantics to preferred extensions as the least sceptical semantics. Extending abstract argumentation to allow att...
متن کاملArguing with Sets of Attacking Arguments
One of the most widely studied systems of argumentation is the one described by Dung in a paper from 1995. Unfortunately, this framework does not allow for joint attacks on arguments, which we argue must be required of any truly abstract argumentation framework. A few frameworks can be said to allow for such interactions among arguments, but for various reasons we believe that these are inadequ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- CoRR
دوره abs/1705.00303 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2017