A Sound and Complete Dialectical Proof Procedure for Sceptical Preferred Argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
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 argumentation frameworks as a subclass.
منابع مشابه
Inductive 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 کاملArgumentation-Based Proof Procedures for Credulous and Sceptical Non-monotonic Reasoning
We define abstract proof procedures for performing credulous and sceptical non-monotonic reasoning, with respect to the argumentation-theoretic formulation of non-monotonic reasoning proposed in [1]. Appropriate instances of the proposed proof procedures provide concrete proof procedures for concrete formalisms for non-monotonic reasoning, for example logic programming with negation as failure ...
متن کاملCombining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning ( corrected version ) 1
This paper proposes an argument-based semantics for combined epistemic and practical reasoning, taking seriously the idea that in certain contexts epistemic reasoning is sceptical while practical reasoning is credulous. The new semantics combines grounded and preferred semantics. A dialectical proof theory is defined which is sound and complete with respect to this semantics and which combines ...
متن کاملCombining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning
This paper proposes an argument-based semantics for combined epistemic and practical reasoning, taking seriously the idea that in certain contexts epistemic reasoning is sceptical while practical reasoning is credulous. The new semantics combines grounded and preferred semantics. A dialectical proof theory is defined which is sound and complete with respect to this semantics and which combines ...
متن کاملTowards 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 کامل