Nonmonotonic tools for argumentation

Authors:
Gerhard Brewka
Affiliations:
Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
Venue:
JELIA'10 Proceedings of the 12th European conference on Logics in artificial intelligence
Year:
2010

Citing 6
Cited 1

On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games

Artificial Intelligence
Burden of proof in legal argumentation

ICAIL '95 Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof

Artificial Intelligence
Carneades and Abstract Dialectical Frameworks: A Reconstruction

Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010
Goal Selection in Argumentation ProcessesA Formal Model of Abduction in Argument Evaluation Structures

Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010
Probabilistic Semantics for the Carneades Argument Model Using Bayesian Networks

Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010

Where logic and agents meet

Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Dung's argumentation frameworks (AFs) have become very popular as semantical tools in argumentation. We discuss a generalization of AFs called abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs). These frameworks are more flexible in that they allow arbitrary boolean functions to be used for the specification of acceptance conditions for nodes. We present the basic underlying definitions and give an example illustrating why they are useful. More precisely, we show how they can be used to provide a semantical foundation for Gordon, Prakken and Walton's Carneades model of argumentation, lifting the limitation of this model to acyclic argument graphs.