A Logical Account of Formal Argumentation

Caminada, Martin; Gabbay, Dov M.

doi:10.1007/s11225-009-9218-x

Cited by 190 publications

(310 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

298

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a correspondence between Caminada labellings on (S, R) and extensions on S. This is extensively studied in [7]. The following table 1 is taken from [7] and the references in it are for Definitions and Theorems in [7] itself.…”

Section: Remark 13 (Correspondence Between Caminada Labelling and Exmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Semantics for Higher Level Attacks in Extended Argumentation Frames Part 1: Overview

Gabbay

2009

Stud Logica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.In 2005 the author introduced networks which allow attacks on attacks of any level. So if a → b reads a attacks b, then this attack can itself be attacked by another node c. This attack itself can attack another node d. This situation can be iterated to any level with attacks and nodes attacking other attacks and other nodes.In this paper we provide semantics (of extensions) to such networks. We offer three different approaches to obtaining semantics. The translation approachThis uses the methodology of 'Logic by translation'. We translate faithfully the new networks into ordinary Dung networks with more nodes and extract the semantics from the translation. The labelling approachThis method regards the arrows as additional entities to be attacked and to mount attacks and applies a variation of the usual machinery of Camindada like labelling to the network. The new concept we need to employ here is that of 'joint attacks'. The logic programming approachWe translate the higher level network into a logic program and obtain semantics for it through known semantics for logic programs.We then compare our methods with those of S. Modgil and P. M. Dung et al.

show abstract

Section: Remark 13 (Correspondence Between Caminada Labelling and Exmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The following table 1 is taken from [7] and the references in it are for Definitions and Theorems in [7] itself. From now on we work with Caminada labellings.…”

Section: Remark 13 (Correspondence Between Caminada Labelling and Exmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantics for Higher Level Attacks in Extended Argumentation Frames Part 1: Overview

Gabbay

2009

Stud Logica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…stable, semi-stable, grounded, preferred) labelling L of an argumentation framework AF and a complete (resp. stable, semi-stable, grounded, preferred) extension of AF [10,14]. In this paper, the distinction between different labellings is often unimportant and S-labelling means one of the five labellings introduced above.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Abduction in Argumentation Frameworks and Its Use in Debate Games

Sakama

2014

New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper studies an abduction problem in formal argumentation frameworks. Given an argument, an agent verifies whether the argument is justified or not in its argumentation framework. If the argument is not justified, the agent seeks conditions to explain the argument in its argumentation framework. We formulate such abductive reasoning in argumentation semantics and provide its computation in logic programming. Next we apply abduction in argumentation frameworks to reasoning by players in debate games. In debate games, two players have their own argumentation frameworks and each player builds claims to refute the opponent. A player may provide false or inaccurate arguments as a tactic to win the game. We show that abduction is used not only for seeking counter-claims but also for building dishonest claims in debate games.

show abstract

“…A preferred extension can be defined in terms of a complete labelling of the set of arguments that assigns in to arguments that are accepted; out to those that are rejected; and undec to those that are neither [7,Theorem 2]. Such labelling is called a Caminada labelling [7,Definition 5] and has advantages over the extension approach, because the latter only identifies the set of arguments that are accepted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such labelling is called a Caminada labelling [7,Definition 5] and has advantages over the extension approach, because the latter only identifies the set of arguments that are accepted. We will return to this type of labelling later in the section.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Numerical Approach to the Merging of Argumentation Networks

Gabbay

Rodrigues

2012

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper, we propose a numerical approach to the problem of merging of argumentation networks. The idea is to consider an augmented network containing the arguments and attacks of all networks to be merged and then associate a weight to each of its components based on how they are perceived by the agents associated with the local networks. The combined weighted network is then used to define a system of equations from which the overall strength of the arguments is calculated.

show abstract

A Logical Account of Formal Argumentation

Cited by 190 publications

References 20 publications

Semantics for Higher Level Attacks in Extended Argumentation Frames Part 1: Overview

Semantics for Higher Level Attacks in Extended Argumentation Frames Part 1: Overview

Abduction in Argumentation Frameworks and Its Use in Debate Games

A Numerical Approach to the Merging of Argumentation Networks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About