On Acceptability in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks with an Extended Defeat Relation

Defeat between arguments is established by a combination of two basic elements: a conflict or defeat relation, and a preference relation on the arguments involved in this conflict. We present a new abstract framework for argumentation where two kinds of defeat are present, depending on the outcome of the preference relation: an argument may be a proper defeater or a blocking defeater of another argument. An operator is used to characterize the set of accepted arguments. This operator also provides a method for identifying controversial situations.

[1]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A System for Defeasible Argumentation, with Defeasible Priorities , 1996, Artificial Intelligence Today.

[2]  Simon Parsons,et al.  Arguments, Dialogue, and Negotiation , 2000, ECAI.

[3]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments in Preference-based Argumentation , 1998, UAI.

[4]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Computing Generalized Specificity , 2003, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[5]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Progressive Defeat Paths in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks , 2006, Canadian Conference on AI.

[6]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Value-based argumentation frameworks , 2002, NMR.

[7]  Gerard Vreeswijk,et al.  Abstract Argumentation Systems , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[8]  David Poole,et al.  On the Comparison of Theories: Preferring the Most Specific Explanation , 1985, IJCAI.

[9]  Ana Gabriela Maguitman,et al.  Logical models of argument , 2000, CSUR.

[10]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  "Minimal defence": a refinement of the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks , 2002, NMR.

[11]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach , 2003, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[13]  Leila Amgoud.  Using Preferences to Select Acceptable Arguments , 1998, ECAI.

[14]  Francesca Toni,et al.  Abstract argumentation , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[15]  Guillermo R. Simari,et al.  The Role of Dialectics in Defeasible Argumentation , 1994 .

[16]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Logic Programming , 1993, IJCAI.