Texte intégral
Published in D. Mohammed & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned 1 Action: Proceedings of the First European Conference on Argumentation.
Volume II, pp. 463-478, 2016,
which should be used for any reference to this work
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Documents relatifs
We develop a dynamic model of preference-based argumentation, centring on what we call property-based argumentation frameworks. It is based on Dietrich and List’s model
Given bipolar argumentation frameworks, Cayrol and Lagasquie-Schiex [8] define supported and secondary attacks based on attack and support as shown in Figure 2.a-b.. SUPPORTED ATTACKS
the abstract bipolar argumentation framework (in particu- lar, the definition of acceptability in this framework), the links between bipolarity in argumentation and other kinds
Amgoud and Vesic [3] have pro- posed a new PAF which satisfies two requirements: conflict-freeness of extensions with respect to the attack relation (this is Principle 1 in
Summarizing, this logic of meta-argumentation allows us to specify and verify complex requirements for extended frameworks, such as extended argumentation frameworks with higher
Among the formalisms that can represent canonical defeasible rules are: the defeasible logics NDL and ADL, the defeasible logics in the DL framework, the extended defeasible logics
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des
(a) A justification, conclusion, rebutting, or undercutting defeater is undercut for a participant if the claim is followed by an odd-numbered string of undercutting defeaters
