Contradiction in Argumentation Frameworks
نویسنده
چکیده
We present a theory of argumentation that can deal with contradiction within an argumentation framework, thus solving a problem posed in [1]. By representing logic programs as sets of interacting arguments, we can apply our results for general argumentation frameworks to logicprogramming semantics. This yields a new semantics for logic programs that properly extends traditional approaches such as stable [2] and wellfounded [3] models.
منابع مشابه
Robust Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks
We suggest a so-called “robust” semantics for a model of argumentation which represents arguments and their interactions, called “argumentation frameworks”. We study a variety of additional definitions of acceptability of arguments; we explore the properties of these definitions; we describe their inter-relationships: e.g. robust models can be characterized using the minimal (well-founded) mode...
متن کاملClosure and Consistency In Logic-Associated Argumentation
Properties like logical closure and consistency are important properties in any logical reasoning system. Caminada and Amgoud showed that not every logic-based argument system satisfies these relevant properties. But under conditions like closure under contraposition or transposition of the monotonic part of the underlying logic, ASPIC-like systems satisfy these properties. In contrast, the log...
متن کاملAcceptance Through Argumentation - a Preliminary
When an agent receives new pieces of information , these may contradict his previous beliefs. The agent must decide how to solve this contradiction. Most frameworks dealing with the problem of belief revision attach higher priority to incoming information, i.e., they may give up some part of the old beliefs in order to accommodate the new piece of information and keep consistency. In this paper...
متن کاملAcyclic Argumentation: Attack = Conflict + Preference
In this paper we study the fragment of Dung’s argumentation theory in which the strict attack relation is acyclic. We show that every attack relation satisfying a particular property can be represented by a symmetric conflict relation and a transitive preference relation in the following way. We define an instance of Dung’s abstract argumentation theory, in which ‘argument A attacks argument B’...
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 کامل