Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks

Jakobovits, Hadassa; Vermeir, Dirk

doi:10.1093/logcom/9.2.215

Cited by 103 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It immediately follows that every complete labelling is also a JV-labelling and a VJ-labelling, and that every JV-labelling or VJ-labelling is also an admissible labelling. We use the term JV-labelling, because these are quite close to a proposal of Jakobovits and Vermeir [20]. An important difference, however, is that in our approach each argument gets exactly one out of three possible labels (in, out or undec) whereas in Jakobovits and Vermeir's original proposal, there are four possibilities (either no label, single in, single out, or both in and out).…”

Section: If All Attackers Of a Are Labelled Out Then A Is Labelled Inmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…As explained in [20], Pollock's approach essentially boils down to preferred semantics. The labelling approach of Jakobovits and Vermeir [20] is aimed not so much at describing Dung's original semantics but rather to defining additional semantics driven by what they perceive to be problems in Dung's original semantics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is equally well possible, however, to express these concepts using argument labellings. This approach was pioneered by Pollock [21] and Jakobovits and Vermeir [20], and has more recently been extended by Caminada [8,11], Vreeswijk [28] and Verheij [26]. The idea of a labelling is to associate with each argument exactly one label, which can either be in, out or undec.…”

Section: Argument Labellingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Logical Account of Formal Argumentation

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.In the current paper, we re-examine how abstract argumentation can be formulated in terms of labellings, and how the resulting theory can be applied in the field of modal logic. In particular, we are able to express the (complete) extensions of an argumentation framework as models of a set of modal logic formulas that represents the argumentation framework. Using this approach, it becomes possible to define the grounded extension in terms of modal logic entailment.

show abstract

Section: If All Attackers Of a Are Labelled Out Then A Is Labelled Inmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Argument Labellingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Logical Account of Formal Argumentation

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is equally well possible, however, to express this concept in terms of argument labellings. This approach has been proposed by Pollock [15] and Jakobovits and Vermeir [14], and has recently been extended by Caminada [4], Vreeswijk [24] and Verheij [22]. The idea of a labelling is to associate with each argument exactly one label, which can either be in, out or undec.…”

Section: Argument Semantics and Argument Labellingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complete Extensions in Argumentation Coincide with 3-Valued Stable Models in Logic Programming

Caminada

Gabbay

2009

Stud Logica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we prove the correspondence between complete extensions in abstract argumentation and 3-valued stable models in logic programming. This result is in line with earlier work of [8] that identified the correspondence between the grounded extension in abstract argumentation and the well-founded model in logic programming, as well as between the stable extensions in abstract argumentation and the stable models in logic programming. We believe the results of this paper are not only relevant by themselves, but can also potentially be used for future work on the correspondence between argumentation and logic programming semantics.

show abstract

“…Meta-level argumentation has been proposed in several works [17,5,11,21] and further developed with different goals. Boella and colleagues [7,8], in particular, proposed the meta-argumentation methodology where extended argumentation frameworks are instantiated with meta-arguments, and reasoning in the meta-level is allowed without the need to extend Dung-like abstract framework.…”

Section: Meta-argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing Goal-Based Requirements Consistency: An Argumentation-Based Approach

Mirbel

Villata

2012

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Requirements engineering research has for long recognized the leading role of goals as requirement artifacts during the requirements engineering specification processes. Given the large number of artifacts created during the requirements specification and the continuous evolution of these artifacts, reasoning about them remains a challenging task. Moreover, the rising complexity of the target domain under consideration during the requirements engineering process as well as the growth of geographically distributed projects explain why the number of collected requirements as well as their complexity also increase. In this context, providing support to stakeholders in achieving a common understanding of a set of goal-based requirements, in consolidating them and keeping them consistent over time is another challenging task. In this paper, we propose an approach to detect consistent sets of goal-based requirements and maintain their consistency over time. Our approach relies on argumentation theory which allows to detect the conflicts among elements called arguments. In particular, we rely on meta-argumentation, which instantiates abstract argumentation frameworks, where requirements are represented as arguments and the standard Dung-like argumentation framework is extended with additional relations between goal-based requirements.

show abstract

Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks

Cited by 103 publications

References 12 publications

A Logical Account of Formal Argumentation

A Logical Account of Formal Argumentation

Complete Extensions in Argumentation Coincide with 3-Valued Stable Models in Logic Programming

Enhancing Goal-Based Requirements Consistency: An Argumentation-Based Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About