Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) provide a fruitful basis for exploring issues of defeasible reason- ing. Their power largely derives from the abstract na- ture of the arguments within the framework, where ar- guments are atomic nodes in an undifferentiated relation of attack. This abstraction conceals different concep- tions of argument, and concrete instantiations encounter difficulties as a result of conflating these conceptions. We distinguish three distinct senses of the term. We provide an approach to instantiating AFs in which the nodes are restricted to literals and rules, encoding the underlying theory directly. Arguments, in each of the three senses, then emerge from this framework as dis- tinctive structures of nodes and paths. Our framework retains the theoretical and computational benefits of an abstract AF, while keeping notions distinct which are conflated in other approaches to instantiation. |
Year | Venue | Field |
|---|---|---|
2009 | AAAI Fall Symposium: The Uses of Computational Argumentation | Conflation,Knowledge representation and reasoning,Abstraction,Cognitive science,Computer science,Argumentation theory,Defeasible reasoning,Artificial intelligence,Machine learning,Encoding (memory) |
DocType | Citations | PageRank |
Conference | 6 | 0.58 |
References | Authors | |
10 | 3 | |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adam Zachary Wyner | 1 | 408 | 37.67 |
| Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon | 2 | 1726 | 140.23 |
| Paul E. Dunne | 3 | 1700 | 112.42 |