scholarly journals Change in Abstract Bipolar Argumentation Systems

2015 ◽  
pp. 314-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudette Cayrol ◽  
Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Systems

Hybrid argumentation systems for structured news reports

2001 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 295-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTHONY HUNTER
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Hybrid Systems ◽  
Real World ◽  
Hybrid Approach ◽  
Graphical Notation ◽  
The Real ◽  
News Reports ◽  
Further Development ◽  
Argumentation Systems

Numerous argumentation systems have been proposed in the literature. Yet there often appears to be a shortfall between proposed systems and possible applications. In other words, there seems to be a need for further development of proposals for argumentation systems before they can be used widely in decision-support or knowledge management. I believe that this shortfall can be bridged by taking a hybrid approach. Whilst formal foundations are vital, systems that incorporate some of the practical ideas found in some of the informal approaches may make the resulting hybrid systems more useful. In informal approaches, there is often an emphasis on using graphical notation with symbols that relate more closely to the real-world concepts to be modelled. There may also be the incorporation of an argument ontology oriented to the user domain. Furthermore, in informal approaches there can be greater consideration of how users interact with the models, such as allowing users to edit arguments and to weight influences on graphs representing arguments. In this paper, I discuss some of the features of argumentation, review some key formal argumentation systems, identify some of the strengths and weaknesses of these formal proposals and finally consider some ways to develop formal proposals to give hybrid argumentation systems. To focus my discussions, I will consider some applications, in particular an application in analysing structured news reports.

scholarly journals A. Tarskiego kryterium monotoniczności operatora konsekwencji w międzykulturowych badaniach systemów wniskowań

2016 ◽  
pp. 37-50
Author(s):  
Sławomir Sikora
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Comparative Research ◽  
Logical Consequence ◽  
Consequence Operator ◽  
Philosophical Argumentation ◽  
Argumentation Systems

In this article I refer to the issue of comparative research methodology and methods of philosophical argumentation systems with different cultural areas. In relation to that shown by A. Tarski logical consequence operator, will establish criteria for the comparative analysis of systems inferences different cultural areas of the property based on the operator monotonic consequences.

Bipolar abstract argumentation systems

2009 ◽  
pp. 65-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudette Cayrol ◽  
Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex
Keyword(s):  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Argumentation Systems

scholarly journals Generating possible intentions with constrained argumentation systems

2011 ◽  
Vol 52 (9) ◽  
pp. 1363-1391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leila Amgoud ◽  
Caroline Devred ◽  
Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Systems

scholarly journals Dynamics of Argumentation Systems: A Basic Theory

10.29007/njsm ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beishui Liao ◽  
Li Jin ◽  
Rober Koons
Keyword(s):  
General Theory ◽  
Intrinsic Property ◽  
Basic Theory ◽  
Argumentation Framework ◽  
The Status ◽  
Grounded Semantics ◽  
Argumentation Systems

The changing of arguments and their attack relation is an intrinsic property of a variety of argumentation systems. So, it is very important to efficiently figure out how the status of arguments in a system evolves when the system is updated. However, unlike other areas of argumentation that have been deeply explored, such as argumentation semantics, proof theories, and algorithms, etc., dynamics of argumentation systems has been comparatively neglected. In this paper, we introduce a general theory (called a division-based method) to cope with this problem based on a new concept: the division of an argumentation framework. When an argumentation framework is updated, it is divided into three parts: an unaffected, an affected, and a conditioning part. The status of arguments in the unaffected sub-framework remains unchanged, while the status of the affected arguments is computed in a special argumentation framework (called a conditioned argumentation framework, or briefly CAF) that is composed of an affected part and a conditioning part. We have proved that under a certain semantics that satisfies the directionality criterion (complete, preferred, ideal, or grounded semantics), the extensions of the updated framework are equal to the result of a combination of the extensions of an unaffected sub-framework and sets of the extensions of a set of assigned CAFs. The theory shows that the complexity of computing the dynamics of argumentation will decrease to a lesser or greater extent, depending on the types of argumentation semantics, the topologies of argumentation frameworks, and the number of affected arguments with respect to an addition or a deletion. As a result, this theory is expected to be very useful in various kinds of argumentation systems where arguments and attacks are dynamics, due to the changing of underlying knowledge and information.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document