Undercutting in Argumentation Systems
نویسندگان
چکیده
Rule-based argumentation systems are developed for reasoning about defeasible information. They take as input a theory made of a set of strict rules, which encode strict information, and a set of defeasible rules which describe general behaviour with exceptional cases. They build arguments by chaining such rules, define attacks between them, use a semantics for evaluating the arguments, and finally identify the plausible conclusions that follow from the rules. One of the main attack relations of such systems is the so-called undercutting which blocks the application of defeasible rules in some contexts. In this paper, we show that this relation is powerful enough to capture alone all the different conflicts in a theory. We present the first argumentation system that uses only undercutting and fully characterize both its extensions and its plausible conclusions under various acceptability semantics.
منابع مشابه
An Argumentation Framework with Backing and Undercutting
In this work we will combine two important notions for the argumentation community into Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs). These notions correspond to Toulmin’s backings and Pollock’s undercutting defeaters. We will define Backing-Undercutting Argumentation Frameworks (BUAFs), an extension of AFs that includes a specialized support relation, a distinction between different attack types, a...
متن کاملAn argumentation system for defeasible reasoning1
Rule-based argumentation systems are developed for reasoning about defeasibleinformation. They take as input a theory made of a set of facts, a set of strictrules, which encode strict information, and a set of defeasible rules which describegeneral behavior with exceptional cases. They build arguments by chaining suchrules, define attacks between them, use a semantics for evalua...
متن کاملArgumentation Corner A formalization of argumentation schemes for legal case-based reasoning in ASPIC+
In this article we offer a formal account of reasoning with legal cases in terms of argumentation schemes. These schemes, and undercutting attacks associated with them, are formalized as defeasible rules of inference within the ASPIC+ framework. We begin by modelling the style of reasoning with cases developed by Aleven and Ashley in the CATO project, which describes cases using factors, and th...
متن کاملA formalization of argumentation schemes for legal case-based reasoning in ASPIC+
In this paper we offer a formal account of reasoning with legal cases in terms of argumentation schemes. These schemes, and undercutting attacks associated with them, are formalised as defeasible rules of inference within the ASPIC+ framework. We begin by modelling the style of reasoning with cases developed by Aleven and Ashley in the CATO project, which describes cases using factors, and then...
متن کاملA Comprehensive Approach to Argumentation
A reasoning model, based on the logic of argumentation, is described. The model represents argumentation as a directed graph in which nodes and arcs can be colored using an ordinal set of weightings and in which the attributes of both nodes and arcs can be modified. It is thus able to deal with the undercutting or augmenting of arguments. Weightings can be propagated through the graph to genera...
متن کامل