对于包含支持关系的论辩框架,已有研究中存在对攻击的定义繁琐、外延求解复杂等问题。该文用演绎支持关系和必要支持关系来扩展抽象论辩框架,并采用一种基于强度的方法来定义该框架中的攻击关系,在此基础上提出一种更简洁且更有表达力的基于外延的语义。该文将一种基于等式的方法运用于这种论辩框架,为其提供一种基于标记的语义。最后,该文证明在这种论辩框架下,基于等式的方法和基于外延的语义之间存在对应关系。
Abstract
In studies concerning argumentation frameworks with support relations, the definitions of attacks are ad-hoc and the computation of the frameworks are complex. We extend abstract argumentation frameworks with deductive and necessary supports and put forward a strength-based approach to definition of attacks. We devise a more concise and expressive extension-based semantics for these argumentation frameworks. Also, we apply a method for derivation of labelling-based semantics called equational approaches, to these argumentation frameworks. We prove that there are correspondences between these two semantics.
关键词
双极论辩框架 /
基于等式的方法 /
论辩语义
{{custom_keyword}} /
Key words
bipolar argumentation frameworks /
equational approach /
argumentation semartics
{{custom_keyword}} /
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] CARSTENS L, TONI F. Towards relation based argumentation mining[C]//Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining, 2015: 29-34.
[2] CARSTENS L, TONI F. Using argumentation to improve classification in natural language problems[J]. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, ACM New York, NY, USA, 2017, 17(3): 1-23.
[3] 廖备水. 论辩系统: 不一致情境中的推理[M]. 浙江大学出版社, 2012.
[4] DUNG P M. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 1995, 77(2): 321-357.
[5] BARONI P, CAMINADA M, GIACOMIN M. An introduction to argumentation semantics[J]. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 2011, 26(4): 365-410.
[6] LIAO B, VAN DER TORRE L. Explanation semantics for abstract argumentation[M]//Computational Models of Argument. IOS Press, 2020: 271-282.
[7] CAMINADA M W A, GABBAY D M. A logical account of formal argumentation[J]. Studia Logica, 2009, 93: 109-145.
[8] CAYROL C, LAGASQUIE SCHIEX M C. On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks[C]//Proceedings of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty, Springer, 2005: 378-389.
[9] CAYROL C, LAGASQUIE SCHIEX M C. Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: Towards a better understanding[J]. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 2013, 54(7): 876-899.
[10] BOELLA G, GABBAY D M. Support in abstract argumentation[C]//Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Ios Press, 2010: 40-51.
[11] NOUIOUA F, RISCH V. Bipolar argumentation frameworks with specialized supports[C]//Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence. IEEE, 2010: 215-218.
[12] NOUIOUA F, RISCH V. Argumentation frameworks with necessities[C]//Proceedings of Scalable uncertainty management: 5th International Conference, SUM 2011, Dayten, OH, USA, October 10-13, 2011. Procedings 5. Springer, 2011: 163-176.
[13] BESNAR D P, OTHER S. Semantics for evidence-based argumentation[G]//Computatinoal Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA, 2008: 276-284.
[14] PRAKKEN H. On support relations in abstract argumentation as abstractions of inferential relations[M]//ECAI 2014. IOS Press, 2014: 735-740.
[15] MODGIL S, PRAKKEN H. The ASPIC + framework for structured argumentation: A tutorial[J]. Argument & Computation, 2014, 5(1): 31-62.
[16] GABBAY D M. Equational approach to argumentation networks[J]. Argument & Computation, 2012, 3(2-3): 87-142.
{{custom_fnGroup.title_cn}}
脚注
{{custom_fn.content}}
基金
国家社会科学基金(20&ZD047)
{{custom_fund}}
PDF(1495 KB)
