Undercutting in argumentation systems - Archive ouverte HAL Access content directly
Conference Papers Year : 2015

Undercutting in argumentation systems


Rule-based argumentation systems are developed for reasoning about defeasible information. They take as input a theory made of a set of strict rules, which encode strict information, and a set of defeasible rules which describe general behaviour with exceptional cases. They build arguments by chaining such rules, define attacks between them, use a semantics for evaluating the arguments, and finally identify the plausible conclusions that follow from the rules. One of the main attack relations of such systems is the so-called undercutting which blocks the application of defeasible rules in some contexts. In this paper, we show that this relation is powerful enough to capture alone all the different conflicts in a theory. We present the first argumentation system that uses only undercutting and fully characterize both its extensions and its plausible conclusions under various acceptability semantics.
Fichier principal
Vignette du fichier
amgoud_16846.pdf (488.82 Ko) Télécharger le fichier
Origin Files produced by the author(s)

Dates and versions

hal-01592025 , version 1 (22-09-2017)


  • HAL Id : hal-01592025 , version 1
  • OATAO : 16846


Leila Amgoud, Farid Nouioua. Undercutting in argumentation systems. International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2015), Sep 2015, Quebec, Canada. pp. 267-281. ⟨hal-01592025⟩
179 View
112 Download


Gmail Mastodon Facebook X LinkedIn More