A Unified Framework for Representation and Development of Dialectical Proof Procedures in Argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
We present an unified methodology for representation and development of dialectical proof procedures in abstract argumentation based on the notions of legal environments and dispute derivations. A legal environment specifies the legal moves of the dispute parties while a dispute derivation describes the procedure structure. A key insight of this paper is that the opponent moves determine the soundness of a dispute while the completeness of a dispute procedure depends on the proponent moves.
منابع مشابه
Towards a Common Framework for Dialectical Proof Procedures in Abstract Argumentation
We present a common framework for dialectical proof procedures for computing credulous, grounded, ideal and sceptical preferred semantics of abstract argumentation. The framework is based on the notions of dispute derivation and base derivation. Dispute derivation is a dialectical notion first introduced for computing credulous semantics in assumption-based argumentation, and adapted here for c...
متن کاملA 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 کاملA Lattice-Based Approach to Computing Warranted Beliefs in Skeptical Argumentation Frameworks
Abstract argumentation frameworks have played a major role as a way of understanding argumentbased inference, resulting in different argumentbased semantics. In order to make such semantics computationally attractive, suitable proof procedures are required, in which a search space of arguments is examined to find out which arguments are warranted or ultimately acceptable. This paper introduces ...
متن کاملArgumentation structures that integrate dialectical and non-dialectical reasoning
Argumentation concepts have been applied to numerous knowledge engineering endeavours in recent years. For example, a variety of logics have been developed to represent argumentation in the context of a dialectical situation such as a dialogue. In contrast to the dialectical approach, argumentation has also been used to structure knowledge. This can be seen as a non-dialectical approach. The To...
متن کاملA Dialectical Approach for Argument-Based Judgment Aggregation
The current paper provides a dialectical interpretation of the argumentation-based judgment aggregation operators of Caminada and Pigozzi. In particular, we define discussion-based proof procedures for the foundational concepts of down-admissible and up-complete. We then show how these proof procedures can be used as the basis of dialectical proof procedures for the sceptical, credulous and sup...
متن کامل