Abstract
aspic \(^{+}\) is one of the most widely used systems for structured arguments and includes the use of both strict and defeasible rules. Here we consider using just the defeasible part of aspic \(^{+}\). We show that using the resulting system, it is possible, in a well defined sense, to capture the same information as using aspic \(^{+}\) with strict rules.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
This is not same as definition of “strict” as in [11] where the only condition was that \(\mathcal {R}_d = \emptyset \). Here we insist that a strict argument includes at least one strict rule. As a consequence, the notions of “strict” and “defeasible” are not duals, and an argument can be neither strict or defeasible — but only if it contains only premises and/or axioms.
- 2.
\(A=B\) is defined as \(A \le B\) and \(B \le A\).
References
Amgoud, L.: Five weaknesses of ASPIC\(^ \text{+ } \). In: Greco, S., Bouchon-Meunier, B., Coletti, G., Fedrizzi, M., Matarazzo, B., Yager, R.R. (eds.) IPMU 2012, Part III. CCIS, vol. 299, pp. 122–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Amgoud, L., Bodenstaff, L., Caminada, M., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Prakken, H., van Veenen, J., Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Final review and report on formal argumentation system. Deliverable D2.6. Technical report, ASPIC IST-FP6-002307 (2006)
Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artif. Intell. 128, 203–235 (2001)
Caminada, M.: Contamination in formal argumentation systems. In: Proceedings of the 17th Belgium-Netherlands Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2005)
Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5), 286–310 (2007)
Caminada, M., Modgil, S., Oren, N.: Preferences and unrestricted rebut. In: Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2014 (2014)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-persons games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)
Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 199–218. Springer, New York (2009)
García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory Pract. Logic Programm. 4(1+2), 95–138 (2004)
Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artif. Intell. 195, 361–397 (2012)
Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)
Prakken, H., Modgil, S.: Clarifying some misconceptions on the ASPIC+ framework. In: Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of Comma 2012 (2012)
Wu, Y., Podlaszewski, M.: Implementing crash-resistance and non-interference in logic-based argumentation. J. Logic Comput. 1–31 (2014)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Li, Z., Parsons, S. (2015). On Argumentation with Purely Defeasible Rules. In: Beierle, C., Dekhtyar, A. (eds) Scalable Uncertainty Management. SUM 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9310. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23540-0_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23540-0_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-23539-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-23540-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)