On the Acceptability of Incompatible Arguments (bibtex)
by Souhila Kaci, Leendert W.N. van der Torre, Emil Weydert
Abstract:
In this paper we study the acceptability of incompatible arguments within Dung's abstract argumentation framework. As an example we introduce an instance of Dung's framework where arguments are represented by propositional formulas and an argument attacks another one when the conjunction of their representations is inconsistent, which we characterize as a kind of symmetric attack. Since symmetric attack is known to have the drawback to collapse the various argumentation semantics, we consider also two variations. First, we consider propositional arguments distinguishing support and conclusion. Second, we introduce a preference ordering over the arguments and we define the attack relation in terms of a symmetric incompatibility relation and the preference relation. We show how to characterize preference-based argumentation using a kind of acyclic attack relation.
Reference:
On the Acceptability of Incompatible Arguments (Souhila Kaci, Leendert W.N. van der Torre, Emil Weydert), In Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, 9th European Conference, ECSQARU 2007, Hammamet, Tunisia, October 31 -- November 2, 2007, Proceedings (Khaled Mellouli, ed.), Springer, volume 4724, 2007.
Bibtex Entry:
@InProceedings{Kaci2007,
  Title                    = {On the Acceptability of Incompatible Arguments},
  Author                   = {Souhila Kaci and Leendert W.N. van der Torre and Emil Weydert},
  Booktitle                = {Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, 9th European Conference, ECSQARU 2007, Hammamet, Tunisia, October 31 -- November 2, 2007, Proceedings},
  Year                     = {2007},
  Editor                   = {Khaled Mellouli},
  Pages                    = {247-258},
  Publisher                = {Springer},
  Series                   = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science},
  Volume                   = {4724},

  Abstract                 = {In this paper we study the acceptability of incompatible arguments within Dung's abstract argumentation framework. As an example we introduce an instance of Dung's framework where arguments are represented by propositional formulas and an argument attacks another one when the conjunction of their representations is inconsistent, which we characterize as a kind of symmetric attack. Since symmetric attack is known to have the drawback to collapse the various argumentation semantics, we consider also two variations. First, we consider propositional arguments distinguishing support and conclusion. Second, we introduce a preference ordering over the arguments and we define the attack relation in terms of a symmetric incompatibility relation and the preference relation. We show how to characterize preference-based argumentation using a kind of acyclic attack relation. },
  Affiliation              = {icr},
  Bdsk-url-1               = {http://icr.uni.lu/leonvandertorre/papers/ecsqaru07.pdf},
  Timestamp                = {2013.07.26},
  Url                      = {http://icr.uni.lu/leonvandertorre/papers/ecsqaru07.pdf}
}
Powered by bibtexbrowser