A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
We present a procedure for computing the sceptical “ideal semantics” for argumentation in assumption-based frameworks. This semantics was first proposed for logic programming in [1], extending the well-founded semantics. The proof procedure is defined by means of a form of dispute derivations, obtained by modifying the dispute derivations given in [2] for computing credulous admissible argumentation. The new dispute derivations are sound for the “ideal semantics” in all cases where the dispute derivations of [2] are complete for admissible argumentation. We prove that this is the case for the special kind of assumption-based frameworks with a finite underlying language and with the property of being “p-acyclic”.
منابع مشابه
A Sound and Complete Dialectical Proof Procedure for Sceptical Preferred Argumentation
We present a dialectical proof procedure for computing skeptical preferred semantics in argumentation frameworks. The proof procedure is based on the dispute derivation introduced for assumption-based framework. We prove the soundness of the procedure for any argumentation frameworks and the completeness for a general class of finitary argumentation frameworks containing the class of finite arg...
متن کاملAssumption-Based Argumentation for Communicating Agents
Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA), and to a large extent argumentation in general, up to now has been considered in a single-agent setting. ABA, in particular, is such that an agent engages in a dispute (dialectic proof procedure) with itself (an imaginary opponent) to decide whether a claim is acceptable according to some acceptability criteria. We present in this paper a generalised proof ...
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 کاملDialectic proof procedures for assumption - based , admissible argumen - tation 6 July 2005
We present a family of dialectic proof procedures for the admissibility semantics of assumption-based argumentation. These proof procedures are defined for any conventional logic formulated as a collection of inference rules and show how any such logic can be extended to a dialectic argumentation system. The proof procedures find a set of assumptions, to defend a given belief, by starting from ...
متن کاملDialectic proof procedures for assumption - based , admissible argumen - tation 3 February 2005
We present a family of dialectic proof procedures for the admissibility semantics of assumption-based argumentation. These proof procedures are defined for any conventional logic formulated as a collection of inference rules and show how any such logic can be extended to a dialectic argumentation system. The proof procedures find a set of assumptions, to defend a given belief, by starting from ...
متن کامل