A Logic of Abstract Argumentation

Boella, Guido; Hulstijn, Joris; Torre, Leendert van der

doi:10.1007/11794578_2

Cited by 14 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite its relative popularity, formal argumentation has been criticized for its lack of meta-theory [6]. Although quite extensive work has been done describing the properties of the various argument-based semantics [4,3], what is lacking is a comprehensive way of expressing properties of argumentation using existing logical approaches.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Logical Account of Formal Argumentation

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.In the current paper, we re-examine how abstract argumentation can be formulated in terms of labellings, and how the resulting theory can be applied in the field of modal logic. In particular, we are able to express the (complete) extensions of an argumentation framework as models of a set of modal logic formulas that represents the argumentation framework. Using this approach, it becomes possible to define the grounded extension in terms of modal logic entailment.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Logical Account of Formal Argumentation

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many types of support relationships have been identified in the literature so far with different applications [5,14,16]. The most common type is that of reinstatement which is implicit in Dung's framework [6], and is understood in the sense of counter-attack.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building Support-Based Opponent Models in Persuasion Dialogues

Hadjinikolis

Modgil

Black

2015

Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper deals with an approach to opponent-modelling in argumentation-based persuasion dialogues. It assumes that dialogue participants (agents) have models of their opponents' knowledge, which can be augmented based on previous dialogues. Specifically, previous dialogues indicate relationships of support, which refer both to arguments as abstract entities and to their logical constituents. The augmentation of an opponent model relies on these relationships. An argument external to an opponent model can augment that model with its logical constituents, if that argument shares support relationships with other arguments that can be constructed from that model. The likelihood that the constituents of supporting arguments will in fact be known to an opponent, varies according to support types. We therefore provide corresponding quantifications for each support type.

show abstract

“…Deductive support The deductive support has first appeared in [5]. This variant is intended to enforce the following constraint: If bR sup c then "the acceptance of b implies the acceptance of c", and as a consequence "the non-acceptance of c implies the non-acceptance of b".…”

Section: Definition 4 (Bas)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first new attack, called mediated attack in [5], occurs when bR sup c and aR att c: "the acceptance of a implies the non-acceptance of c" and so "the acceptance of a implies the non-acceptance of b".…”

Section: Definition 4 (Bas)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In [8], the support relation is left general so that the bipolar framework keeps a high level of abstraction. However there is no single interpretation of the support, and a number of researchers proposed specialized variants of the support relation: deductive support [5], necessary support [21,22], evidential support [23,24], backing support [13]. Each specialization can be associated with an appropriate modelling using an appropriate complex attack.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Axiomatic Approach to Support in Argumentation

Cayrol

Lagasquie-Schiex

2015

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OATAO is an open access repository that collects the work of Toulouse researchers and makes it freely available over the web where possible. This is an author-deposited version published in : http://oatao.univ-toulouse.fr/ Eprints ID : 15488The contribution was presented at : http://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/n.oren/pages/TAFA-15/ Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to the repository administrator: staff-oatao@listes-diff.inp-toulouse.fr An axiomatic approach to support in argumentationClaudette Cayrol and Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex IRIT-UPS, Toulouse, France {ccayrol,lagasq}@irit.frAbstract. In the context of bipolar argumentation (argumentation with two kinds of interaction, attacks and supports), we present an axiomatic approach for taking into account a special interpretation of the support relation, the necessary support. We propose constraints that should be imposed to a bipolar argumentation system using this interpretation. Some of these constraints concern the new attack relations, others concern acceptability. We extend basic Dung's framework in different ways in order to propose frameworks suitable for encoding these constraints. By the way, we propose a formal study of properties of necessary support.

show abstract

A Logic of Abstract Argumentation

Cited by 14 publications

References 15 publications

A Logical Account of Formal Argumentation

A Logical Account of Formal Argumentation

Building Support-Based Opponent Models in Persuasion Dialogues

An Axiomatic Approach to Support in Argumentation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About