On the graded acceptability of arguments in abstract and instantiated argumentation
From MaRDI portal
Publication:2321325
Abstract: The paper develops a formal theory of the degree of justification of arguments, which relies solely on the structure of an argumentation framework, and which can be successfully interfaced with approaches to instantiated argumentation. The theory is developed in three steps. First, the paper introduces a graded generalization of the two key notions underpinning Dung's semantics: self-defense and conflict-freeness. This leads to a natural generalization of Dung's semantics, whereby standard extensions are weakened or strengthened depending on the level of self-defense and conflict-freeness they meet. The paper investigates the fixpoint theory of these semantics, establishing existence results for them. Second, the paper shows how graded semantics readily provide an approach to argument rankings, offering a novel contribution to the recently growing research programme on ranking-based semantics. Third, this novel approach to argument ranking is applied and studied in the context of instantiated argumentation frameworks, and in so doing is shown to account for a simple form of accrual of arguments within the Dung paradigm. Finally, the theory is compared in detail with existing approaches.
Recommendations
Cites work
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 4174344 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1531964 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 6934384 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 194916 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 2243383 (Why is no real title available?)
- A Game-Theoretic Measure of Argument Strength for Abstract Argumentation
- A general account of argumentation with preferences
- A logic-based theory of deductive arguments
- A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments
- Abstract argument games via modal logic
- Abstraction in argumentation: necessary but dangerous
- An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning
- An equational approach to the merging of argumentation networks
- Argumentation in artificial intelligence
- Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation
- Equilibrium states in numerical argumentation networks
- Infinite argumentation frameworks. On the existence and uniqueness of extensions
- Logic and structure
- On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games
- On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms
- Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks
- Probabilistic reasoning with abstract argumentation frameworks
- Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks
- Translating preferred subtheories into structured argumentation
- Weighted argument systems: basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results
Cited in
(19)- Indepth combinatorial analysis of admissible sets for abstract argumentation
- A parametrized ranking-based semantics for persuasion
- Broadening Label-Based Argumentation Semantics with May-Must Scales
- On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games
- Reduced meet over labelling-based semantics in abstract argumentation
- An abstract and structured account of dialectical argument strength
- An empirical and axiomatic comparison of ranking-based semantics for abstract argumentation
- Philosophical reflections on argument strength and gradual acceptability
- Ranking-based semantics from the perspective of claims
- A general approach to extension-based semantics in abstract argumentation
- Proportional acceptability of arguments
- Ranking functions over labelings
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 2243383 (Why is no real title available?)
- Probabilistic graded semantics
- Preservation of Admissibility with Rationality and Feasibility Constraints
- An approach to characterize graded entailment of arguments through a label-based framework
- Knowledge representation, scientific argumentation and non-monotonic logic
- Graded labellings for abstract argumentation
- On instantiating generalised properties of gradual argumentation frameworks
This page was built for publication: On the graded acceptability of arguments in abstract and instantiated argumentation
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2321325)
