A Canonical Semantics for Structured Argumentation with Priorities

Due to a proliferation and diversity of approaches to reasoning with prioritized rules, ordinary properties have been introduced recently for characterization and evaluation of the proposed semantics. While ordinary properties are helpful, a fundamental question of whether they are sufficient to identify a common semantics underlining reasoning with priorities remains open. In this paper we address this question by introducing a new simple and intuitive property of inconsistency-resolving and slightly adapting other ordinary properties to show that they together indeed determine an unique canonical attack relation that could be viewed as defining an uniquely defined common semantics for reasoning with prioritized rules.

[1]  Thomas Eiter,et al.  Preferred Answer Sets for Extended Logic Programs , 1999, Artif. Intell..

[2]  Sanjay Modgil,et al.  Preferences and Unrestricted Rebut , 2014, COMMA.

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

[4]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  The modular logic of private international law , 2011, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[5]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Closure and Consistency In Logic-Associated Argumentation , 2014, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[6]  Hans Tompits,et al.  A framework for compiling preferences in logic programs , 2002, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[7]  Brian A. Davey,et al.  An Introduction to Lattices and Order , 1989 .

[8]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Assumption-Based Argumentation , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

[9]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  An axiomatic analysis of structured argumentation with priorities , 2016, Artif. Intell..

[10]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  On Acceptability in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks with an Extended Defeat Relation , 2006, COMMA.

[11]  Gerhard Brewka,et al.  Preferred Subtheories: An Extended Logical Framework for Default Reasoning , 1989, IJCAI.

[12]  Henry Prakken,et al.  An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments , 2010, Argument Comput..

[13]  Tran Cao Son,et al.  Reasoning with Prioritized Defaults , 1997, LPKR.

[14]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  An Abstract, Argumentation-Theoretic Approach to Default Reasoning , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[15]  Phan Minh Dung.  Argumentation for Practical Reasoning: An Axiomatic Approach , 2016, PRIMA.

[16]  Leila Amgoud,et al.  Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems , 2014, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[17]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Inferring from Inconsistency in Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks , 2002, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[18]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  An Axiomatic Analysis of Structured Argumentation for Prioritized Default Reasoning , 2014, ECAI.

[19]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A general account of argumentation with preferences , 2013, Artif. Intell..

[20]  Henry Prakken,et al.  The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial , 2014, Argument Comput..

[21]  Miroslaw Truszczynski,et al.  Preferences and Nonmonotonic Reasoning , 2008, AI Mag..

[22]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[23]  Martin Caminada,et al.  On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms , 2007, Artif. Intell..

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

[25]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks , 2003, J. Log. Comput..