A characterization of collective conflict for defeasible argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
In this paper we define a recursive semantics for warrant in a general defeasible argumentation framework by formalizing a notion of collective (non-binary) conflict among arguments. This allows us to ensure direct and indirect consistency (in the sense of Caminada and Amgoud) without distinguishing between direct and indirect conflicts. Then, the general defeasible argumentation framework is extended by allowing to attach levels of preference to defeasible knowledge items and by providing a level-wise definition of warranted and blocked conclusions. Finally, we formalize the warrant recursive semantics for the particular framework of Possibilistic Defeasible Logic Programming, characterize the unique output program property and design an efficient algorithm for computing warranted conclusions in
منابع مشابه
RP-DeLP: a weighted defeasible argumentation framework based on a recursive semantics
In this article, we propose a recursive semantics for warranted formulas in a general defeasible logic argumentation framework by formalizing a notion of collective (non-binary) conflict among arguments. The recursive semantics for warranted formulas is based on the intuitive grounds that if an argument is rejected, then further arguments built on top of it should also be rejected. The main cha...
متن کاملMaximal Ideal Recursive Semantics for Defeasible Argumentation
In [1] a recursive warrant semantics for Defeasible Logic Programming extended with levels of possibilistic uncertainty for defeasible rules was introduced. The resulting argumentation framework, called RP-DeLP, is based on a general notion of collective (non-binary) conflict among arguments allowing to ensure direct and indirect consistency properties with respect to the strict knowledge. An o...
متن کاملOn the implementation of a multiple outputs algorithm for defeasible argumentation
In a previous work we defined a recursive warrant semantics for Defeasible Logic Programming based on a general notion of collective conflict among arguments. The main feature of this recursive semantics is that an output of a program is a pair consisting of a set of warranted and a set of blocked formulas. A program may have multiple outputs in case of circular definitions of conflicts among a...
متن کاملA Computational Method for Defeasible Argumentation Based on a Recursive Warrant Semantics
In a recent paper [2] the authors have formalized a recursive semantics for warranted conclusions in a general defeasible argumentation framework based on a propositional logic. The warrant recursive semantics is based on a general notion of collective (non-binary) conflict among arguments allowing to ensure direct and indirect consistency properties. This general framework was also extended by...
متن کاملRP-DeLP: A weighted defeasible argumentation framework based on a recursive semantics
In this paper we propose a recursive semantics for warranted formulas in a general defeasible logic argumentation framework by formalizing a notion of collective (nonbinary) conflict among arguments. The recursive semantics for warranted formulas is based on the intuitive grounds that if an argument is rejected, then further arguments built on top of it should also be rejected. The main charact...
متن کامل