An Axiomatic Account of Formal Argumentation - Archive ouverte HAL Accéder directement au contenu
Communication Dans Un Congrès Année : 2005

An Axiomatic Account of Formal Argumentation

Résumé

Argumentation theory has become an important topic in the field of AI. The basic idea is to construct arguments in favor and against a statement, to select the “acceptable” ones and, finally, to determine whether the statement can be accepted or not. Dung’s elegant account of abstract argumentation (Dung 1995) may have caused some to believe that defining an argumentation formalism is simply a matter of determining how arguments and their defeat relation can be constructed from a given knowledge base. Unfortunately, things are not that simple; many straightforward instantiations of Dung’s theory can lead to very unintuitive results, as is discussed in this paper. In order to avoid such anomalies, in this paper we are interested in defining some rules, called rationality postulates or axioms, that govern the well definition of an argumentation system. In particular, we define two important rationality postulates that any system should satisfy: the consistency and the closeness of the results returned by that system. We then provide a relatively easy way in which these quality postulates can be warranted by our argumentation system.
Fichier principal
Vignette du fichier
AAAI051CaminadaM.pdf.pdf (104.23 Ko) Télécharger le fichier
Origine : Fichiers produits par l'(les) auteur(s)

Dates et versions

hal-04323105 , version 1 (05-12-2023)

Identifiants

  • HAL Id : hal-04323105 , version 1

Citer

Martin Caminada, Leila Amgoud. An Axiomatic Account of Formal Argumentation. 20th Annual AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2005), AAAI: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, Jul 2005, Pittsburgh, United States. pp.608--613. ⟨hal-04323105⟩
17 Consultations
5 Téléchargements

Partager

Gmail Facebook X LinkedIn More