Integrating Dialectical and Accrual Modes of Argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
This paper argues that accrual should be modelled in terms of reasoning about the application of preferences to sets of arguments, and shows how such reasoning can be formalised within metalevel argumentation frameworks. These frameworks adopt the same machinery and level of abstraction as Dung’s argumentation framework. We thus provide a dialectical argumentation semantics that integrates accrual, and illustrate our approach by instantiating our framework with the arguments and attacks defined by an object level formalism that accommodates reasoning about priorities over sets of rules.
منابع مشابه
Argumentation 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 کاملOn the existence and multiplicity of extensions in dialectical argumentation
In the present paper, the existence and multiplicity problems of extensions are addressed. The focus is on extension of the stable type. The main result of the paper is an elegant characterization of the existence and multiplicity of extensions in terms of the notion of dialectical justification, a close cousin of the notion of admissibility. The characterization is given in the context of the ...
متن کاملDialectical Argumentation for Reasoning about Chemical Carcinogenicity
We aim to build intelligent systems which can reason autonomously about the carcinogenicity of chemicals. Scientific debates in this area draw on evidence from multiple, and often conflicting sources, both theoretical and experimental, and participants use various modes of inferential reasoning. In seeking to automate such reasoning, we have first articulated precisely the multiple modes of inf...
متن کاملDialectical Explanations in Defeasible Argumentation
This work addresses the problem of providing explanation capabilities to an argumentation system. Explanation in defeasible argumentation is an important, and yet undeveloped field in the area. Therefore, we move in this direction by defining a concrete argument system with explanation facilities. We consider the structures that provide information on the warrant status of a literal. Our focus ...
متن کاملDialectical Abstract Argumentation: A Characterization of the Marking Criterion
This article falls within the field of abstract argumentation frameworks. In particular, we focus on the study of frameworks using a proof procedure based on dialectical trees. These trees rely on a marking procedure to determine the warrant status of their root argument. Thus, our objective is to formulate rationality postulates to characterize the marking criterion over dialectical trees. The...
متن کامل