An Axiomatic Approach to Support in Argumentation

Cayrol, Claudette; Lagasquie-Schiex, Marie-Christine

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_5

Cited by 9 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This last result-which requires a relatively complex argumentative representationopens up an interesting avenue for future work, namely in determining which nonmonotonic logics can be easily captured through standard formal argumentation techniques, and which require additional rules or axioms in order to be represented. We note that on the argumentation side, work on bipolar argumentation (e.g., [9]) has considered introducing additional defeats between arguments based on some notion of support, and we intend to investigate how the additional defeats we introduced can be categorized in such frameworks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritized norms in formal argumentation

Liao

Oren²,

Torre

et al. 2018

Journal of Logic and Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritized norms in formal argumentation

Liao

Oren²,

Torre

et al. 2018

Journal of Logic and Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For this edge, the Neither Agree nor Disagree level of agreement is the most common value, both in the total and in the core sample. 17 G-test for independence yields G-value 208.01 with 6 degrees of freedom and p-value less than 2.2 × 10 −16 . This result was obtained using the library Deducer (likelihood.test function) in R. 18 G-test for independence yields G-value 175.33 with 6 degrees of freedom and p-value less than 2.2 × 10 −16 .…”

Section: 1 Effect Of a Relation On Its Sourcementioning

confidence: 96%

“…The reason for this is two-fold. First of all, there is no consensus as to which indirect conflicts should be associated with a given specialized form of support, such as deductive or necessary [49,17,54]. Second of all, we are not aware of any empirical study verifying that people indeed associate with a given type of support the indirect attacks ascribed to it in theory.…”

Section: Argument Graphsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…First of all, both defenses and supports are forms of positive relations between arguments. Hence, interactions between them are unavoidable, particularly given the results in [49,17]. Taking into account that our participants are not argumentation experts and their task was to mark positive relations in the dialogue, what they have identified could fall into either support or defense category.…”

Section: Argument Graphsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Empirical evaluation of abstract argumentation: Supporting the need for bipolar and probabilistic approaches

Polberg

Hunter

2018

International Journal of Approximate Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In dialogical argumentation, it is often assumed that the involved parties will always correctly identify the intended statements posited by each other and realize all of the associated relations, conform to the three acceptability states (accepted, rejected, undecided), adjust their views whenever new and correct information comes in, and that a framework handling only attack relations is sufficient to represent their opinions. Although it is natural to make these assumptions as a starting point for further research, dropping some of them has become quite challenging.Probabilistic argumentation is one of the approaches that can be harnessed for more accurate user modelling. The epistemic approach allows us to represent how much a given argument is believed or disbelieved by a given person, offering us the possibility to express more than just three agreement states. It comes equipped with a wide range of postulates, including those that do not make any restrictions concerning how initial arguments should be viewed. Thus, this approach is potentially more suitable for handling beliefs of the people that have not fully disclosed their opinions or counterarguments with respect to standard Dung's semantics. The constellation approach can be used to represent the views of different people concerning the structure of the framework we are dealing with, including situations in which not all relations are acknowledged or when they are seen differently than intended. Finally, bipolar argumentation frameworks can be used to express both positive and negative relations between arguments.In this paper we will describe the results of an experiment in which participants were asked to judge dialogues in terms of agreement and structure. We will compare our findings with the aforementioned assumptions as well as with the constellation and epistemic approaches to probabilistic argumentation and bipolar argumentation.

show abstract

“…However, in the last years, recent studies on argumentation have shown that a support interaction may exist between arguments, this kind of relation represents some real world situations. In this sense, several formal approaches were considered such as deductive support, necessary support and evidential support [10,11,12,13], where a classical argumentative framework is enhanced to model a positive and negative interaction between arguments. In special, a simple abstract formalization of argument support is provided in the framework proposed by Cayrol and Lagasquie-Schiex in [10], called Bipolar Argumentation Framework (BAF), where they extend Dung's notion of acceptability by distinguishing two independent forms of interaction between arguments: support and attack.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bipolarity in temporal argumentation frameworks

Budn

Cobo

Martínez

et al. 2017

International Journal of Approximate Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Timed Argumentation Framework (TAF) is a formalism where arguments are only valid for consideration in a given period of time, called availability intervals, which are defined for every individual argument. The original proposal is based on a single, abstract notion of attack between arguments that remains static and permanent in time. Thus, in general, when identifying the set of acceptable arguments, the outcome associated with a TAF will vary over time.In this work we introduce an extension of TAF adding the capability of modeling a support relation between arguments. In this sense, the resulting framework provides a suitable model for different time-dependent issues. Thus, the main contribution here is to provide an enhanced framework for modeling a positive (support) and negative (attack) interaction varying over time, which are relevant in many real-world situations.

show abstract

An Axiomatic Approach to Support in Argumentation

Cited by 9 publications

References 21 publications

Prioritized norms in formal argumentation

Prioritized norms in formal argumentation

Empirical evaluation of abstract argumentation: Supporting the need for bipolar and probabilistic approaches

Bipolarity in temporal argumentation frameworks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About