On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms

Caminada, Martin ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7498-0238 and Amgoud, Leila 2007. On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence 171 (5-6) , pp. 286-310. 10.1016/j.artint.2007.02.003

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

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 original statement can be accepted or not. Several argumentation systems have been proposed in the literature. Some of them, the so-called rule-based systems, use a particular logical language with strict and defeasible rules. While these systems are useful in different domains (e.g. legal reasoning), they unfortunately 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 principles, called rationality postulates, that can be used to judge the quality of a rule-based argumentation system. In particular, we define two important rationality postulates that should be satisfied: the consistency and the closure of the results returned by that system. We then provide a relatively easy way in which these rationality postulates can be warranted for a particular rule-based argumentation system developed within a European project on argumentation

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Computer Science & Informatics
Subjects:	Q Science > QA Mathematics > QA75 Electronic computers. Computer science
Publisher:	Elsevier
ISSN:	0004-3702
Last Modified:	31 Oct 2022 10:17
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/84297

Citation Data

Cited 369 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item