Conflict Resolution in Structured Argumentation

12 pages•Published: July 28, 2014

Martin Baláž, Jozef Frtús and Martin Homola

Abstract

While several interesting argumentation-based semantics for
defeasible logic programs have been proposed, to our best
knowledge, none of these approaches is able to fully handle the
closure under strict rules in a sufficient manner: they are either
not closed, or they use workarounds such as transposition of rules
which violates the desired directionality of logic programming
rules.

We propose a novel argumentation-based semantics, in which the
status of arguments is determined by attacks between newly
introduced conflict resolutions instead of attacks between
arguments. We show that the semantics is closed w.r.t. strict
rules and respects the directionality of inference rules, as well
as other desired properties previously published in the
literature.

Keyphrases: argumentation, conflict resolution, defeasible logic program

In: Ken Mcmillan, Aart Middeldorp, Geoff Sutcliffe and Andrei Voronkov (editors). LPAR-19. 19th International Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning, vol 26, pages 23-34.

Links:	https://easychair.org/publications/paper/MBj
	https://doi.org/10.29007/brgz

BibTeX entry

@inproceedings{LPAR-19:Conflict_Resolution_Structured_Argumentation,
  author    = {Martin Baláž and Jozef Frtús and Martin Homola},
  title     = {Conflict Resolution in Structured Argumentation},
  booktitle = {LPAR-19. 19th International Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning},
  editor    = {Ken Mcmillan and Aart Middeldorp and Geoff Sutcliffe and Andrei Voronkov},
  series    = {EPiC Series in Computing},
  volume    = {26},
  publisher = {EasyChair},
  bibsource = {EasyChair, https://easychair.org},
  issn      = {2398-7340},
  url       = {/publications/paper/MBj},
  doi       = {10.29007/brgz},
  pages     = {23-34},
  year      = {2014}}

Download PDF Open PDF in browser