Computer Science – Artificial Intelligence
Scientific paper
2002-07-08
Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, 2002, pp. 408-415
Computer Science
Artificial Intelligence
8 pages, 3 figures
Scientific paper
Dung's abstract framework for argumentation enables a study of the interactions between arguments based solely on an ``attack'' binary relation on the set of arguments. Various ways to solve conflicts between contradictory pieces of information have been proposed in the context of argumentation, nonmonotonic reasoning or logic programming, and can be captured by appropriate semantics within Dung's framework. A common feature of these semantics is that one can always maximize in some sense the set of acceptable arguments. We propose in this paper to extend Dung's framework in order to allow for the representation of what we call ``restricted'' arguments: these arguments should only be used if absolutely necessary, that is, in order to support other arguments that would otherwise be defeated. We modify Dung's preferred semantics accordingly: a set of arguments becomes acceptable only if it contains a minimum of restricted arguments, for a maximum of unrestricted arguments.
Cayrol C.
Doutre S.
Lagasquie-Schiex M.-C.
Mengin J.
No associations
LandOfFree
"Minimal defence": a refinement of the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.
If you have personal experience with "Minimal defence": a refinement of the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and "Minimal defence": a refinement of the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-172481