14 research outputs found
On the equivalence between logic programming semantics and argumentation semantics
This work has been supported by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg (LAAMI project), by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, UK), grant Ref. EP/J012084/1 (SAsSy project), by CNPq (Universal 2012 ā Proc. 473110/2012-1), and by CNPq/CAPES (Casadinho/PROCAD 2011).Peer reviewedPreprin
On the Difference between Assumption-Based Argumentation and Abstract Argumentation
Acknowledgements The first author has been supported by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg (LAAMI project) and by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, UK), grant ref. EP/J012084/1 (SAsSy project). The second and third authors have been supported by CNPq (Universal 2012 - Proc. no. 473110/2012-1), CAPES (PROCAD 2009) and CNPq/CAPES (Casadinho/PROCAD 2011).Peer reviewedPostprin
Rationality postulates: applying argumentation theory for non-monotonic reasoning
The current book chapter examines how to apply Dungās
theory of abstract argumentation to define meaningful forms of nonmonotonic
inference. The idea is that arguments are constructed using
strict and defeasible inference rules, and that it is then examined
how these arguments attack (or defeat) each other. The thus defined
argumentation framework provides the basis for applying Dung-style semantics,
yielding a number of extensions of arguments. As each of the
constructed arguments has a conclusion, an extension of arguments has
an associated extension of conclusions. It are these extensions of conclusions
that we are interested in. In particular, we ask ourselves whether
each of these extensions is (1) consistent, (2) closed under the strict inference
rules and (3) free from undesired interference. We examine the
current generation of techniques to satisfy these properties, and identify
some research issues that are yet to be dealt with