On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms
Martin Caminada,Leila Amgoud +1 more
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
This paper defines two important rationality postulates that should be satisfied: the consistency and the closure of the results returned by a rule-based argumentation system and provides a relatively easy way in which these rationality postulate can be warranted for a particular rule- based argumentation System developed within a European project on argumentation.About:
This article is published in Artificial Intelligence.The article was published on 2007-04-01 and is currently open access. It has received 469 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Probabilistic argumentation & Argumentation theory.read more
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Argumentation in artificial intelligence
TL;DR: A number of foundational contributions provided the basis for the formulation of argumentation models and their promotion in AI related settings and then a number of new themes that have emerged in recent years are considered, many of which provide the principal topics of the research presented in this volume.
Journal ArticleDOI
An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments
TL;DR: An abstract framework for structured arguments is presented, which instantiates Dung's (‘On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming, and n-Person Games’, Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321–357) abstract argumentation frameworks.
RESEARCH ARTICLE An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments
TL;DR: In this article, an abstract framework for structured arguments is presented that instantiates Dung's (1995) abstract argumentation frameworks, where arguments are defined as inference trees formed by applying two kinds of inference rules: strict and defeasible rules.
Journal ArticleDOI
Review: an introduction to argumentation semantics
TL;DR: The paper presents an extensive set of general properties for semantics evaluation and analyzes the notions of argument justification and skepticism, and discusses some relationships between semantics properties and domain-specific requirements.
Proceedings Article
Semi-Stable Semantics
TL;DR: This paper examines an argument-based semantics called Semi-stable semantics, which is quite close to traditional stable semantics in the sense that every stable extension is also a semi-stable extension.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n -person games
TL;DR: By showing that argumentation can be viewed as a special form of logic programming with negation as failure, this paper introduces a general logic-programming-based method for generating meta-interpreters for argumentation systems, a method very much similar to the compiler-compiler idea in conventional programming.
Book ChapterDOI
Negation as failure
TL;DR: It is shown that when the clause data base and the queries satisfy certain constraints, which still leaves us with a data base more general than a conventional relational data base, the query evaluation process will find every answer that is a logical consequence of the completed data base.
Journal ArticleDOI
Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach
TL;DR: The work reported here introducesdefeasible Logic Programming (DeLP), a formalism that combines results of Logic Programming and Defeasible Argumentation and a defeasible argumentation inference mechanism for warranting the entailed conclusions.
Journal ArticleDOI
Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks
TL;DR: It is shown that in a VAF certain arguments can be shown to be acceptable however the relative strengths of the values involved are assessed, which means that disputants can concur on the acceptance of arguments, even when they differ as to which values are more important, and hence that the possibility of persuasion should be possible.
Journal ArticleDOI
An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning
TL;DR: An abstract framework for default reasoning, which includes Theorist, default logic, logic programming, autoepistemic logic, non-monotonic modal logics, and certain instances of circumscription as special cases, is presented and a more liberal, argumentation-theoretic semantics is proposed, based upon the notion of admissible extension in logic programming.