The role of argument comparison in dialectical argumentation
- Autores
- Martínez, Diego C.; García, Alejandro Javier; Simari, Guillermo Ricardo
- Año de publicación
- 2000
- Idioma
- inglés
- Tipo de recurso
- documento de conferencia
- Estado
- versión publicada
- Descripción
- There are a lot argumentation models thal have been developed inside Artificial Intelligence. Among these models, differents formal systems of defeasible argumentation are defined, where arguments for and against a proposition are produced and evaluated to verify the acceptabilily of that proposition. In this manner, defeasible argumentation allows reasoning with incomplele and uncertain information. The development of this kind of systems has grown in the last years [SIM92, BART, KOWA96, AG97, DUNG93, DUNGLP] but no consensus has been reached yet on some issues, such as the representation of arguments, the way they interact, and the output of that interaction. Even then, the main idea in these systems is that any proposition will be accepted as true if there exist an argument that supports it, and this argument is acceptable according to an analysis between it and its counterarguments. Therefore, in the set of arguments of the system, some of them will be "acceptable" or "justified" arguments, while others not. But this bi-valued classification" arguments is not enough, due to some situations that can be found in argumentation systems. The reasons of non-justification can be analyzed in more detail, so we can make a more specific classification the non-justified arguments. An argument of this kind can not be justified because, for instance, it has a justified defeater, it is involved in circular argumentation. In the former, we can think that the argument has been effectively defeated. In the lalter, the juslification of the argument falls in an "inconclusive" state. This is the starting point lo distinguish a third kind of arguments: those which left the dispute without any conclusion. There exist various names for this argulments, like defendibles, undecided, ambiguous and undetermined. In the rest the paper, we will call this arguments undecided. There is another reason to classify an argument as undecided. This reason is not so obvious as the one specified above, and is related to the comparison of arguments.
Eje: Aspectos teóricos de inteligencia artificial
Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI) - Materia
-
Ciencias Informáticas
dialectical argumentation
role of argument
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - Nivel de accesibilidad
- acceso abierto
- Condiciones de uso
- http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
- Repositorio
- Institución
- Universidad Nacional de La Plata
- OAI Identificador
- oai:sedici.unlp.edu.ar:10915/22099
Ver los metadatos del registro completo
id |
SEDICI_2702d4cea91b45f5e6e7dbb2334fdd22 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:sedici.unlp.edu.ar:10915/22099 |
network_acronym_str |
SEDICI |
repository_id_str |
1329 |
network_name_str |
SEDICI (UNLP) |
spelling |
The role of argument comparison in dialectical argumentationMartínez, Diego C.García, Alejandro JavierSimari, Guillermo RicardoCiencias Informáticasdialectical argumentationrole of argumentARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCEThere are a lot argumentation models thal have been developed inside Artificial Intelligence. Among these models, differents formal systems of defeasible argumentation are defined, where arguments for and against a proposition are produced and evaluated to verify the acceptabilily of that proposition. In this manner, defeasible argumentation allows reasoning with incomplele and uncertain information. The development of this kind of systems has grown in the last years [SIM92, BART, KOWA96, AG97, DUNG93, DUNGLP] but no consensus has been reached yet on some issues, such as the representation of arguments, the way they interact, and the output of that interaction. Even then, the main idea in these systems is that any proposition will be accepted as true if there exist an argument that supports it, and this argument is acceptable according to an analysis between it and its counterarguments. Therefore, in the set of arguments of the system, some of them will be "acceptable" or "justified" arguments, while others not. But this bi-valued classification" arguments is not enough, due to some situations that can be found in argumentation systems. The reasons of non-justification can be analyzed in more detail, so we can make a more specific classification the non-justified arguments. An argument of this kind can not be justified because, for instance, it has a justified defeater, it is involved in circular argumentation. In the former, we can think that the argument has been effectively defeated. In the lalter, the juslification of the argument falls in an "inconclusive" state. This is the starting point lo distinguish a third kind of arguments: those which left the dispute without any conclusion. There exist various names for this argulments, like defendibles, undecided, ambiguous and undetermined. In the rest the paper, we will call this arguments undecided. There is another reason to classify an argument as undecided. This reason is not so obvious as the one specified above, and is related to the comparison of arguments.Eje: Aspectos teóricos de inteligencia artificialRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI)2000-05info:eu-repo/semantics/conferenceObjectinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionObjeto de conferenciahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_5794info:ar-repo/semantics/documentoDeConferenciaapplication/pdf32-35http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/22099enginfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Argentina (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5)reponame:SEDICI (UNLP)instname:Universidad Nacional de La Platainstacron:UNLP2025-09-29T10:54:53Zoai:sedici.unlp.edu.ar:10915/22099Institucionalhttp://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/Universidad públicaNo correspondehttp://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/oai/snrdalira@sedici.unlp.edu.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:13292025-09-29 10:54:53.324SEDICI (UNLP) - Universidad Nacional de La Platafalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
The role of argument comparison in dialectical argumentation |
title |
The role of argument comparison in dialectical argumentation |
spellingShingle |
The role of argument comparison in dialectical argumentation Martínez, Diego C. Ciencias Informáticas dialectical argumentation role of argument ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE |
title_short |
The role of argument comparison in dialectical argumentation |
title_full |
The role of argument comparison in dialectical argumentation |
title_fullStr |
The role of argument comparison in dialectical argumentation |
title_full_unstemmed |
The role of argument comparison in dialectical argumentation |
title_sort |
The role of argument comparison in dialectical argumentation |
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv |
Martínez, Diego C. García, Alejandro Javier Simari, Guillermo Ricardo |
author |
Martínez, Diego C. |
author_facet |
Martínez, Diego C. García, Alejandro Javier Simari, Guillermo Ricardo |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
García, Alejandro Javier Simari, Guillermo Ricardo |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
Ciencias Informáticas dialectical argumentation role of argument ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE |
topic |
Ciencias Informáticas dialectical argumentation role of argument ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE |
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv |
There are a lot argumentation models thal have been developed inside Artificial Intelligence. Among these models, differents formal systems of defeasible argumentation are defined, where arguments for and against a proposition are produced and evaluated to verify the acceptabilily of that proposition. In this manner, defeasible argumentation allows reasoning with incomplele and uncertain information. The development of this kind of systems has grown in the last years [SIM92, BART, KOWA96, AG97, DUNG93, DUNGLP] but no consensus has been reached yet on some issues, such as the representation of arguments, the way they interact, and the output of that interaction. Even then, the main idea in these systems is that any proposition will be accepted as true if there exist an argument that supports it, and this argument is acceptable according to an analysis between it and its counterarguments. Therefore, in the set of arguments of the system, some of them will be "acceptable" or "justified" arguments, while others not. But this bi-valued classification" arguments is not enough, due to some situations that can be found in argumentation systems. The reasons of non-justification can be analyzed in more detail, so we can make a more specific classification the non-justified arguments. An argument of this kind can not be justified because, for instance, it has a justified defeater, it is involved in circular argumentation. In the former, we can think that the argument has been effectively defeated. In the lalter, the juslification of the argument falls in an "inconclusive" state. This is the starting point lo distinguish a third kind of arguments: those which left the dispute without any conclusion. There exist various names for this argulments, like defendibles, undecided, ambiguous and undetermined. In the rest the paper, we will call this arguments undecided. There is another reason to classify an argument as undecided. This reason is not so obvious as the one specified above, and is related to the comparison of arguments. Eje: Aspectos teóricos de inteligencia artificial Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI) |
description |
There are a lot argumentation models thal have been developed inside Artificial Intelligence. Among these models, differents formal systems of defeasible argumentation are defined, where arguments for and against a proposition are produced and evaluated to verify the acceptabilily of that proposition. In this manner, defeasible argumentation allows reasoning with incomplele and uncertain information. The development of this kind of systems has grown in the last years [SIM92, BART, KOWA96, AG97, DUNG93, DUNGLP] but no consensus has been reached yet on some issues, such as the representation of arguments, the way they interact, and the output of that interaction. Even then, the main idea in these systems is that any proposition will be accepted as true if there exist an argument that supports it, and this argument is acceptable according to an analysis between it and its counterarguments. Therefore, in the set of arguments of the system, some of them will be "acceptable" or "justified" arguments, while others not. But this bi-valued classification" arguments is not enough, due to some situations that can be found in argumentation systems. The reasons of non-justification can be analyzed in more detail, so we can make a more specific classification the non-justified arguments. An argument of this kind can not be justified because, for instance, it has a justified defeater, it is involved in circular argumentation. In the former, we can think that the argument has been effectively defeated. In the lalter, the juslification of the argument falls in an "inconclusive" state. This is the starting point lo distinguish a third kind of arguments: those which left the dispute without any conclusion. There exist various names for this argulments, like defendibles, undecided, ambiguous and undetermined. In the rest the paper, we will call this arguments undecided. There is another reason to classify an argument as undecided. This reason is not so obvious as the one specified above, and is related to the comparison of arguments. |
publishDate |
2000 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2000-05 |
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/conferenceObject info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion Objeto de conferencia http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_5794 info:ar-repo/semantics/documentoDeConferencia |
format |
conferenceObject |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv |
http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/22099 |
url |
http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/22099 |
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/ Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Argentina (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5) |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/ Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Argentina (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5) |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf 32-35 |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:SEDICI (UNLP) instname:Universidad Nacional de La Plata instacron:UNLP |
reponame_str |
SEDICI (UNLP) |
collection |
SEDICI (UNLP) |
instname_str |
Universidad Nacional de La Plata |
instacron_str |
UNLP |
institution |
UNLP |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
SEDICI (UNLP) - Universidad Nacional de La Plata |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
alira@sedici.unlp.edu.ar |
_version_ |
1844615807387041792 |
score |
13.070432 |