Rethinking the Rationality Postulates for Argumentation-Based Inference
نویسنده
چکیده
Much research on structured argumentation aims to satisfy the rationality postulates of direct and indirect consistency and strict (deductive) closure. However, examples like the lottery paradox indicate that it is sometimes rational to accept sets of propositions that are indirectly inconsistent or not deductively closed. This paper proposes a variant of the ASPIC+ framework that violates indirect consistency and full strict closure but satisfies direct consistency and restricted forms of strict closure and indirect consistency.
منابع مشابه
Clarifying some misconceptions on the ASPIC+ framework
The ASPIC+ framework is a general framework for argumentationbased inference which aims to unifies two research strands: those in which arguments can only be attacked on their defeasible inferences and those in which arguments can only be attacked on their premises. The framework is meant to define a wide class of instantiations of abstract argumentation frameworks and to support the investigat...
متن کاملOn the evaluation of argumentation formalisms
Argumentation theory has become an important topic in the field of AI. The ba-sic idea is to construct arguments in favor and against a statement, to select the“acceptable” ones and, finally, to determine whether the original statement can beaccepted or not. Several argumentation systems have been proposed in the literature. Some ofthem, the so-called rule-based systems, use a p...
متن کاملAn abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments
An abstract framework for structured arguments is presented that instantiates Dung’s (1995) abstract argumentation frameworks. Arguments are defined as inference trees formed by applying two kinds of inference rules: strict and defeasible rules. This naturally leads to three ways of attacking an argument: attacking a premise, attacking a conclusion and attacking an inference. To resolve such at...
متن کاملA Translation-Based Approach for Revision of Argumentation Frameworks
In this paper, we investigate the revision issue for Dung argumentation frameworks. The main idea is that such frameworks can be translated into propositional formulae, allowing the use of propositional revision operators to perform a rational minimal change. Our translationbased approach to revising argumentation frameworks can take advantage of any propositional revision operator ◦. Via a tra...
متن کاملA general account of argumentation with preferences
This paper builds on the recent ASPIC formalism, to develop a general framework for argumentation with preferences. We motivate a revised definition of conflict free sets of arguments, adapt ASPIC to accommodate a broader range of instantiating logics, and show that under some assumptions, the resulting framework satisfies key properties and rationality postulates. We then show that the general...
متن کامل