A survey of different approaches to support in argumentation systems

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 513-550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Cohen ◽  
Sebastian Gottifredi ◽  
Alejandro J. García ◽  
Guillermo R. Simari
Keyword(s):  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Evidential Support ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Argumentation Systems ◽  
Support Relation ◽  
Comprehensive Study

AbstractIn the last decades, most works in the literature have been devoted to study argumentation formalisms that focus on a defeat relation among arguments. Recently, the study of a support relation between arguments regained attention among researchers; the bulk of the research has been centered on the study of support within the context of abstract argumentation by considering support as an explicit interaction between arguments. However, there exist other approaches that take support into account in a different setting. This article surveys several interpretations of the notion of support as proposed in the literature, such as deductive support, necessary support, evidential support, subargument, and backing, among others. The aim is to provide a comprehensive study where similarities and differences among these interpretations are highlighted, as well as discuss how they are addressed by different argumentation formalisms.

Bipolar abstract argumentation systems

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

scholarly journals Ranking Semantics for Argumentation Systems With Necessities

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dragan Doder ◽  
Srdjan Vesic ◽  
Madalina Croitoru
Keyword(s):  
Evidential Support ◽  
Argumentation Systems

Bipolar argumentation studies argumentation graphs where attacks are combined with another relation between arguments. Many kind of relations (e.g. deductive support, evidential support, necessities etc.) have been defined and investigated from a Dung semantics perspective. We place ourselves in the context of argumentation systems with necessities and provide the first study to investigate ranking semantics in this setting. To this end, we (1) provide a set of postulates specifically designed for necessities and (2) propose the first ranking-based semantics in the literature to be shown to respect these postulates.

scholarly journals Improved answer-set programming encodings for abstract argumentation

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 434-448 ◽  
Author(s):  
SARAH A. GAGGL ◽  
NORBERT MANTHEY ◽  
ALESSANDRO RONCA ◽  
JOHANNES P. WALLNER ◽  
STEFAN WOLTRAN
Keyword(s):  
Answer Set Programming ◽  
Efficient Solutions ◽  
Crucial Step ◽  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Argumentation Systems ◽  
Answer Set

AbstractThe design of efficient solutions for abstract argumentation problems is a crucial step towards advanced argumentation systems. One of the most prominent approaches in the literature is to use Answer-Set Programming (ASP) for this endeavor. In this paper, we present new encodings for three prominent argumentation semantics using the concept of conditional literals in disjunctions as provided by the ASP-system clingo. Our new encodings are not only more succinct than previous versions, but also outperform them on standard benchmarks.

scholarly journals Extending abstract argumentation systems theory

2000 ◽  
Vol 120 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Baroni ◽  
M. Giacomin ◽  
G. Guida
Keyword(s):  
Systems Theory ◽  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Argumentation Systems

scholarly journals Features of Ceramics of the Kulai Culture (Surgut Variant) of the Barsov gorodok I/32 Site (Surgut-Ob Region)

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 116-128
Author(s):  
Dmitrii V. Selin ◽  
Yuriy P. Chemyakin
Keyword(s):  
Organic Matter ◽  
Iron Age ◽  
Iron Ore ◽  
Archaeological Site ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Correct Comparison ◽  
Comprehensive Study ◽  
I 31 ◽  
I 32

Purpose. Barsova Gora is a unique archaeological and landscape site located in the Tyumen Region of the Russian Federation. The archaeological site Barsov gorodok I/32 is located on the edge of the bank of Utoplaya river. A visual comparison of the ceramics of the early Iron Age from the Barsov gorodok I/31–32 sites and the ceramics of the Barsov gorodok I/4 site from the east showed their great similarity, if not their identical nature. For a correct comparison and identification of similarities and differences in the ceramics of these sites, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive study of the products of each settlement using a unified technique. The study is devoted to the analysis of ceramics of the Barsov gorodok I/32 site. Results. The most common motifs are rows of ‘ducks’. Other common patterns are: short wavy horizontal and vertical prints (‘birds’ and ‘snakes’), rows of stamp prints, notches and ‘pearls’. There are no non-ornamented dividing zones on the vessels. There are no ornaments in the form of a series of hemotheric figures and meanders. The upper edges of the vessels are flat (28 %) or beveled inward (72%). In 33% of cases, a cornice is present. The ceramics are made from low-sand ferruginous clays with a natural admixture of sand, mica, brown iron ore, and scraps of vegetation. Artificial impurities are represented by chamotte, broken stone and organic matter. Four recipes of clay paste have been revealed: clay + broken stone; clay + broken stone + chamotte; clay + chamotte; clay + chamotte + organic matter. The ceramics are made with ribbons. The shape of the vessels is cauldron-like. Conclusion. The absence of non-ornamented dividing zones, the presence of rows of short wavy horizontal and vertical impressions (‘birds’ and ‘snakes’), the presence of inwardly beveled upper edges of the vessels with ornamented cornices testify to the late existence of this pottery. The ceramics of the Barsov gorodok I/32 site can be attributed to the late stage of the Kulai culture (Surgut variant).

scholarly journals Two Sides of the Same Coin: Belief Revision and Enforcing Arguments

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Haret ◽  
Johannes P. Wallner ◽  
Stefan Woltran
Keyword(s):  
Belief Revision ◽  
Propositional Logic ◽  
Belief Change ◽  
Knowledge Bases ◽  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Axiomatic Treatment ◽  
Close Relationship ◽  
Representation Result ◽  
Two Sides ◽  
Argumentation Systems

We study a type of change on knowledge bases inspired by the dynamics of formal argumentation systems, where the goal is to enforce acceptance of certain arguments. We put forward that enforcing acceptance of arguments can be viewed as a member of the wider family of belief change operations, and that an axiomatic treatment of it is therefore desirable. In our case, laying down axioms enables a precise account of the close connection between enforcing arguments and belief revision. Our analysis of enforcing arguments proceeds by (i) axiomatizing it as an operation in propositional logic and providing a representation result in terms of rankings on sets of interpretations, (ii) showing that it stands in close relationship to belief revision, and (iii) using it as a gateway towards a principled treatment of enforcement in abstract argumentation.

scholarly journals BEST EXPLANATIONISM AND JUSTIFICATION FOR BELIEFS ABOUT THE FUTURE

Episteme ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 429-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Stoutenburg
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Justified Belief ◽  
Evidential Support ◽  
Explanatory Coherence ◽  
The Future ◽  
Promising Solution ◽  
Beliefs About The Future ◽  
Support Relation

AbstractEarl Conee and Richard Feldman have recently argued that the evidential support relation should be understood in terms of explanatory coherence: roughly, one's evidence supports a proposition if and only if that proposition is part of the best available explanation of the evidence (2008). Their thesis has been criticized through alleged counterexamples, perhaps the most important of which are cases where a subject has a justified belief about the future (Byerly 2013; Byerly and Martin forthcoming). Kevin McCain has defended the thesis against Byerly's counterexample (2013, 2014a). I argue that McCain's defense is inadequate before pointing toward a more promising solution for explanationism. The Byerly–McCain exchange is important because it casts light on the difficult issues of the standards for justification and the nature of epistemic support. Furthermore, McCain's defense of explanationism about epistemic support represents an important recent development of the burgeoning explanationist program in epistemology and philosophy of science.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document