Backing and undercutting in abstract argumentation frameworks
This work will introduce a novel combination of two important argumentation related notions. We will start from the well-known basis of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks or AFs, and we will build a new formalism in which the notions corresponding to Toulmin's backings and Pollock's undercutting defe...
| Authors: | ; ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Status: | Published version |
| Publication date: | 2012 |
| Country: | Argentina |
| Institution: | Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
| Repository: | CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
| Language: | English |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/66263 |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/11336/66263 |
| Access Level: | Open access |
| Keyword: | Argumentation Defeasible Reasoning https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.2 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1 |
| Summary: | This work will introduce a novel combination of two important argumentation related notions. We will start from the well-known basis of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks or AFs, and we will build a new formalism in which the notions corresponding to Toulmin's backings and Pollock's undercutting defeaters are considered. The resulting system, Backing-Undercutting Argumentation Frameworks or BUAFs, will be an extension of the AFs that includes a specialized support relation, a distinction between different attack types, and a preference relation among arguments. Thus, BUAFs will provide a richer representation tool for handling scenarios where information can be attacked and supported. © 2012 Springer-Verlag. |
|---|