Resolutions in Structured Argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
Recently resolution of attacks has been studied in the context of abstract argumentation frameworks. In this paper it is claimed that resolutions should be studied under the assumption that they are generated through the acquisition of preference information, and that this implies that the existing study of resolutions has limited applicability. A formalisation of preference-based resolutions is defined in the context of the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation, and several properties of resolutions are proven or disproven. It is also argued that when resolutions are modelled without specifying the structure of arguments, then it is easy to overlook that assumptions made at the abstract level do not hold for all reasonable instantiations of the abstract framework, thus reducing its significance.
منابع مشابه
Conflict Resolution in Structured Argumentation
While several interesting argumentation-based semantics for defeasible logic programs have been proposed, to our best knowledge, none of these approaches is able to fully handle the closure under strict rules in a sufficient manner: they are either not closed, or they use workarounds such as transposition of rules which violates desired directionality of logic programming rules. We propose a no...
متن کاملReasoning 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 کاملTesting the benfits of structured argumentation in multi-agent deliberation dialogues
Work on argumentation-based dialogue systems often assumes that the adoption of argumentation leads to improved efficiency and effectiveness. Several studies have taken an experimental approach to prove these alleged benefits, but none has so far supported the expressiveness of a logic for structured argumentation. This paper shows how the use of argumentation in deliberation dialogues can be t...
متن کاملOn Relating Abstract and Structured Probabilistic Argumentation: a Case Study (corrected version)
This paper investigates the relations between Timmer et al.’s proposal for explaining Bayesian networks with structured argumentation and abstract models of probabilistic argumentation. First some challenges are identified for incorporating probabilistic notions of argument strength in structured models of argumentation. Then it is investigated to what extent Timmer et al’s approach meets these...
متن کاملOn Strategic Argument Selection in Structured Argumentation Systems
This paper deals with strategical issues of arguing agents in a multi-agent setting. We investigate different scenarios of such argumentation games that differ in the protocol used for argumentation, i. e. direct, synchronous, and dialectical argumentation protocols, the awareness that agents have on other agents beliefs, and different settings for the preferences of agents. We give a thorough ...
متن کامل