Prioritized norms in formal argumentation
From MaRDI portal
Publication:5222686
Abstract: To resolve conflicts among norms, various nonmonotonic formalisms can be used to perform prioritized normative reasoning. Meanwhile, formal argumentation provides a way to represent nonmonotonic logics. In this paper, we propose a representation of prioritized normative reasoning by argumentation. Using hierarchical abstract normative systems, we define three kinds of prioritized normative reasoning approaches, called Greedy, Reduction, and Optimization. Then, after formulating an argumentation theory for a hierarchical abstract normative system, we show that for a totally ordered hierarchical abstract normative system, Greedy and Reduction can be represented in argumentation by applying the weakest link and the last link principles respectively, and Optimization can be represented by introducing additional defeats capturing the idea that for each argument that contains a norm not belonging to the maximal obeyable set then this argument should be rejected.
Recommendations
- Prioritized norms and defaults in formal argumentation
- Handling norms in multiagent systems by means of formal argumentation
- Normative reasoning by sequent-based argumentation
- Sequent-based argumentation for normative reasoning
- Preferences and Assumption-Based Argumentation for Conflict-Free Normative Agents
Cited in
(5)- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 7599964 (Why is no real title available?)
- A probabilistic deontic argumentation framework
- Handling norms in multiagent systems by means of formal argumentation
- Weakest link in formal argumentation: lookahead and principle-based analysis
- Prioritized norms and defaults in formal argumentation
This page was built for publication: Prioritized norms in formal argumentation
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q5222686)