Closure and Consistency Rationalities in Logic-Based Argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
Caminada and Amgoud have argued that logic-based argumentation systems should satisfy the intuitive and natural principles of logical closure and consistency. Prakken has developed this idea further for a richer logic. A question arises naturally whether a general structure guaranteeing the logical closure and consistency properties could be identified that is common for all underlying logics. We explore this question by first defining a logic-based argumentation framework as combination of an abstract argumentation framework with a monotonic Tarski-like consequence operator. We then demonstrate that the logical closure and consistency properties are rested on a simple notion of a base of arguments from which the argument could be constructed in an indefeasible way (using the monotonic consequence operator) and the only way to attack an argument is to attack its base. We show that two natural properties of structural closure and consistency covering based on the idea of bases of arguments indeed guarantee the logical closure and consistency properties. We demonstrate how the properties of structural closure and consistency covering are captured naturally in argumentation systems of Caminada, Amgoud and Prakken as well as in assumption-based argumentation.
منابع مشابه
Closure 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 کاملArgument - based Approaches to Discussion , Inference and Uncertainty
Formal argumentation has become a popular approach for nonmonotonic reasoning and multi-agent communication in Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science. The approach of Dung on the semantics of abstract argumentation frameworks, which specifies different criteria for selecting arguments given an argumentation framework, received a lot of followup. This work aims to enhance today’s generatio...
متن کاملAbstract Rule-Based Argumentation
Rule-Based Argumentation Sanjay Modgil, Henry Prakken abstract. This chapter reviews abstract rule-based approaches to argumentation, in particular the ASPIC framework. In ASPIC and its This chapter reviews abstract rule-based approaches to argumentation, in particular the ASPIC framework. In ASPIC and its predecessors, going back to the seminal work of John Pollock, arguments can be formed by ...
متن کاملCombining Paraconsistent Logic with Argumentation
One tradition in the logical study of argumentation is to allow for arguments that combine strict and defeasible inference rules, and to derive the strict inference rules from a logic at least as strong as classical logic. An unsolved problem in this tradition is how the trivialising effect of the classical Ex Falso principle can be avoided when two arguments that use defeasible rules have cont...
متن کاملTwo Aspects of Relevance in Structured Argumentation: Minimality and Paraconsistency
This paper studies two issues concerning relevance in structured argumentation in the context of the ASPIC framework, arising from the combined use of strict and defeasible inference rules. One issue arises if the strict inference rules correspond to classical logic. A longstanding problem is how the trivialising effect of the classical Ex Falso principle can be avoided while satisfying consist...
متن کامل