A Labelling-Based Justification Status of Arguments
نویسندگان
چکیده
In this paper, we define a labelling-based justification status of the arguments in an argumentation framework. Our proposal allows for a more fine-grained notion of a justification status than the traditional extensions-based approaches. In particular, we are able to distinguish different levels at which an argument can be accepted or rejected. Our approach is fully compatible with traditional abstract argumentation in the sense that it works on standard argumentation frameworks and can be implemented using existing argumentation-based proof procedures.
منابع مشابه
Conditional Labelling for Abstract Argumentation
Agents engage in dialogues having as goals to make some arguments acceptable or unacceptable. To do so they may put forward arguments, adding them to the argumentation framework. Argumentation semantics can relate a change in the framework to the resulting extensions but it is not clear, given an argumentation framework and a desired acceptance state for a given set of arguments, which further ...
متن کاملOn Labelling Statements in Multi-Labelling Argumentation
In computational models of argumentation, argument justification has attracted more attention than statement justification, and significant sensitivity losses are identifiable when dealing with the justification of statements by otherwise appealing formalisms. This paper reappraises statement justification as a formalism-independent component in argument-based reasoning. We introduce a novel ge...
متن کاملWeighing and Balancing in the Justification of Judicial Decisions
In legal theory, it is widely claimed that decisions in hard cases are based on weighing and balancing. However no reconstructions are given of the deep structure of the complex argumenation underlying the justification of these decisions. The author develops a model for the analysis of weighing and balancing of arguments in the justification of judicial decisions that are based on teleological...
متن کاملA Rgue ! - an Implemented System for Computer - Mediated Defeasible
This paper introduces the Argue!-system. It is an example of a system for computer-mediated defeasible argumentation, a new trend in the field of defeasible argumentation. In this research, computer systems are developed that can be used to mediate the process of argumentation of one or more users. Argument-mediation systems should be contrasted with systems for automated reasoning: the latter ...
متن کاملComplexity Properties of Critical Sets of Arguments
In an abstract argumentation framework, there are often multiple plausible ways to evaluate (or label) the status of each argument as accepted, rejected, or undecided. But often there exists a critical set of arguments whose status is sufficient to determine uniquely the status of every other argument. Once an agent has decided its position on a critical set of arguments, then essentially the e...
متن کامل