Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) provide a fruitful basis for exploring issues of defeasible reasoning. Their power largely derives from the abstract nature of the arguments within the framework, where arguments are atomic nodes in an undifferentiated relation of attack. This abstraction conceals different conceptions 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 AF 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 distinctive 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 | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2013 | 10.1007/978-3-642-40624-9_3 | COMPUTATIONAL LOGIC IN MULTI-AGENT SYSTEMS, CLIMA XIV |
Field | DocType | Volume |
Conflation,Argumentation framework,Abstraction,Cognitive science,Argumentation theory,Defeasible reasoning,Artificial intelligence,Classical logic,Logic programming,Mathematics,Encoding (memory) | Conference | 8143 |
ISSN | Citations | PageRank |
0302-9743 | 15 | 0.63 |
References | Authors | |
13 | 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 |