On the Graded Acceptability of Arguments in Abstract and Instantiated Argumentation release_jvymis4ftbgf7anmseqpcatpji

by Davide Grossi, Sanjay Modgil

Released as a article .

2018  

Abstract

The paper develops a formal theory of the degree of justification of arguments, which relies solely on the structure of an argumentation framework, and which can be successfully interfaced with approaches to instantiated argumentation. The theory is developed in three steps. First, the paper introduces a graded generalization of the two key notions underpinning Dung's semantics: self-defense and conflict-freeness. This leads to a natural generalization of Dung's semantics, whereby standard extensions are weakened or strengthened depending on the level of self-defense and conflict-freeness they meet. The paper investigates the fixpoint theory of these semantics, establishing existence results for them. Second, the paper shows how graded semantics readily provide an approach to argument rankings, offering a novel contribution to the recently growing research programme on ranking-based semantics. Third, this novel approach to argument ranking is applied and studied in the context of instantiated argumentation frameworks, and in so doing is shown to account for a simple form of accrual of arguments within the Dung paradigm. Finally, the theory is compared in detail with existing approaches.
In text/plain format

Archived Files and Locations

application/pdf  1.2 MB
file_ex46bl5vpvcktfsdr24amje3wa
arxiv.org (repository)
web.archive.org (webarchive)
Read Archived PDF
Preserved and Accessible
Type  article
Stage   submitted
Date   2018-11-08
Version   v1
Language   en ?
arXiv  1811.03355v1
Work Entity
access all versions, variants, and formats of this works (eg, pre-prints)
Catalog Record
Revision: 2ec7b89f-e193-424c-8e21-b1bc36194690
API URL: JSON