Well-formed defeat paths in abstract argumentation frameworks

Autores
Martínez, Diego C.; García, Alejandro Javier; Simari, Guillermo Ricardo
Año de publicación
2005
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
documento de conferencia
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Abstract argumentation systems are formalisms for argumentation where some components remains unspecified, usually the structure of arguments. In the dialectical process carried out to identify accepted arguments in the system, some controversial situations may be found, related to the reintroduction of arguments in this process, causing a circularity that must be treated in order to avoid an infinite analysis. Some systems apply a single restriction to argumentation lines: no previously considered argument is reintroduced in the process. In this work we show that a more specific restriction need to be applied, taking subarguments into account. We finally present a new definition of acceptable argumentation lines
VI Workshop de Agentes y Sistemas Inteligentes (WASI)
Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI)
Materia
Ciencias Informáticas
abstract argumentation systems
acceptable argumentation lines
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
SEDICI (UNLP)
Institución
Universidad Nacional de La Plata
OAI Identificador
oai:sedici.unlp.edu.ar:10915/22961

id SEDICI_6dfcda252c87b865e84662dad08bf21f
oai_identifier_str oai:sedici.unlp.edu.ar:10915/22961
network_acronym_str SEDICI
repository_id_str 1329
network_name_str SEDICI (UNLP)
spelling Well-formed defeat paths in abstract argumentation frameworksMartínez, Diego C.García, Alejandro JavierSimari, Guillermo RicardoCiencias Informáticasabstract argumentation systemsacceptable argumentation linesAbstract argumentation systems are formalisms for argumentation where some components remains unspecified, usually the structure of arguments. In the dialectical process carried out to identify accepted arguments in the system, some controversial situations may be found, related to the reintroduction of arguments in this process, causing a circularity that must be treated in order to avoid an infinite analysis. Some systems apply a single restriction to argumentation lines: no previously considered argument is reintroduced in the process. In this work we show that a more specific restriction need to be applied, taking subarguments into account. We finally present a new definition of acceptable argumentation linesVI Workshop de Agentes y Sistemas Inteligentes (WASI)Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI)2005-10info:eu-repo/semantics/conferenceObjectinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionObjeto de conferenciahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_5794info:ar-repo/semantics/documentoDeConferenciaapplication/pdfhttp://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/22961enginfo: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:UNLP2025-09-03T10:28:03Zoai:sedici.unlp.edu.ar:10915/22961Institucionalhttp://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/Universidad públicaNo correspondehttp://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/oai/snrdalira@sedici.unlp.edu.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:13292025-09-03 10:28:03.587SEDICI (UNLP) - Universidad Nacional de La Platafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Well-formed defeat paths in abstract argumentation frameworks
title Well-formed defeat paths in abstract argumentation frameworks
spellingShingle Well-formed defeat paths in abstract argumentation frameworks
Martínez, Diego C.
Ciencias Informáticas
abstract argumentation systems
acceptable argumentation lines
title_short Well-formed defeat paths in abstract argumentation frameworks
title_full Well-formed defeat paths in abstract argumentation frameworks
title_fullStr Well-formed defeat paths in abstract argumentation frameworks
title_full_unstemmed Well-formed defeat paths in abstract argumentation frameworks
title_sort Well-formed defeat paths in abstract argumentation frameworks
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
abstract argumentation systems
acceptable argumentation lines
topic Ciencias Informáticas
abstract argumentation systems
acceptable argumentation lines
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Abstract argumentation systems are formalisms for argumentation where some components remains unspecified, usually the structure of arguments. In the dialectical process carried out to identify accepted arguments in the system, some controversial situations may be found, related to the reintroduction of arguments in this process, causing a circularity that must be treated in order to avoid an infinite analysis. Some systems apply a single restriction to argumentation lines: no previously considered argument is reintroduced in the process. In this work we show that a more specific restriction need to be applied, taking subarguments into account. We finally present a new definition of acceptable argumentation lines
VI Workshop de Agentes y Sistemas Inteligentes (WASI)
Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI)
description Abstract argumentation systems are formalisms for argumentation where some components remains unspecified, usually the structure of arguments. In the dialectical process carried out to identify accepted arguments in the system, some controversial situations may be found, related to the reintroduction of arguments in this process, causing a circularity that must be treated in order to avoid an infinite analysis. Some systems apply a single restriction to argumentation lines: no previously considered argument is reintroduced in the process. In this work we show that a more specific restriction need to be applied, taking subarguments into account. We finally present a new definition of acceptable argumentation lines
publishDate 2005
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2005-10
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/10915/22961
url http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/22961
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
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_ 1842260119264428032
score 13.13397