An Abstract Argumentation Framework with Varied-Strength Attacks
نویسندگان
چکیده
In classical abstract argumentation, arguments interact with each other through a single abstract notion of attack. However, several concrete forms of argument conflict are present in the literature, all of them of different nature and strength for a particular context. In this work we define an argumentation framework equipped with a set of abstract attack relations of varied strength. Using this framework, semantic notions dealing with the relative difference of strength are introduced. The focus is put on argument defense, and the study of admissible sets according to the quality of defenders.
منابع مشابه
Reasoning 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 کاملGeneralizing Abstract Argumentation with Nested Attacks
In this paper Dung’s abstract argumentation framework (cp. [23]) is being generalized by introducing nested attacks. Attacks are allowed not only on single arguments (e.g. a → b), but on the attacks themselves as well (a → (b → c)). Key terms of Dung’s account of abstract argumentation are adjusted for nested argumentation frameworks (henceforth NAF) in a way which preserves their original mean...
متن کاملEncompassing Attacks to Attacks in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
In the traditional definition of Dung’s abstract argumentation framework (AF ), the notion of attack is understood as a relation between arguments, thus bounding attacks to start from and be directed to arguments. This paper introduces a generalized definition of abstract argumentation framework called AFRA (Argumentation Framework with Recursive Attacks), where an attack is allowed to be direc...
متن کاملOn support relations in abstract argumentation as abstractions of inferential relations
Arguably the significance of an abstract model of argumentation depends on the range of realistic instantiations it allows. This paper therefore investigates for three frameworks for abstract argumentation with support relations whether they can be instantiated with the ASPIC framework for structured argumentation. Both evidential argumentation systems and a simple extension of Dung’s abstract ...
متن کاملOn extended conflict-freeness in argumentation
This paper studies a possibility to represent n-ary conflicts within an argumentation framework having only binary attacks. We show that different instantiations of the abstract argumentation framework defined by Dung use very similar constructs for dealing with n-ary conflicts. We start by studying this procedure on two fully-instantiated systems from the argumentation literature and then show...
متن کامل