Advertisement

On Argumentation with Purely Defeasible Rules

  • Zimi LiEmail author
  • Simon Parsons
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9310)

Abstract

aspic \(^{+}\) is one of the most widely used systems for structured arguments and includes the use of both strict and defeasible rules. Here we consider using just the defeasible part of aspic \(^{+}\). We show that using the resulting system, it is possible, in a well defined sense, to capture the same information as using aspic \(^{+}\) with strict rules.

Keywords

Inference Rule Strict Rule Argumentation Framework Argumentation System Attack Relation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L.: Five weaknesses of ASPIC\(^ \text{+ } \). In: Greco, S., Bouchon-Meunier, B., Coletti, G., Fedrizzi, M., Matarazzo, B., Yager, R.R. (eds.) IPMU 2012, Part III. CCIS, vol. 299, pp. 122–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Bodenstaff, L., Caminada, M., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Prakken, H., van Veenen, J., Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Final review and report on formal argumentation system. Deliverable D2.6. Technical report, ASPIC IST-FP6-002307 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artif. Intell. 128, 203–235 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caminada, M.: Contamination in formal argumentation systems. In: Proceedings of the 17th Belgium-Netherlands Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5), 286–310 (2007)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caminada, M., Modgil, S., Oren, N.: Preferences and unrestricted rebut. In: Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-persons games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 199–218. Springer, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory Pract. Logic Programm. 4(1+2), 95–138 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artif. Intell. 195, 361–397 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prakken, H., Modgil, S.: Clarifying some misconceptions on the ASPIC+ framework. In: Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of Comma 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wu, Y., Podlaszewski, M.: Implementing crash-resistance and non-interference in logic-based argumentation. J. Logic Comput. 1–31 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, Graduate CenterCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations