An Argumentation Framework Based on Conditional Priorities

  title={An Argumentation Framework Based on Conditional Priorities},
  author={Quoc Bao Vo},
  • Q. B. Vo
  • Published in PRICAI 15 December 2008
  • Computer Science, Philosophy
We propose a framework to allow an agent to cope with inconsistent beliefs and to handle conflicting inferences. Our approach is based on a well-established line of research on assumption-based argumentation frameworks and defeasible reasoning. We propose a language to allow defeasible assumptions and context-sensitive priorities to be explicitly expressed and reasoned about by the agent. Our work reveals some interesting problems to conditional priority-based argumentation and establishes the… 


Inferring from Inconsistency in Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks
This paper investigates preference-based acceptability, the basic idea is to accept undefeated arguments and also arguments that are preferred to their defeaters, and defines argumentation frameworks based on that preference- based acceptability.
Reasoning about Action: An Argumentation - Theoretic Approach
  • N. Foo, Q. B. Vo
  • Computer Science, Philosophy
    J. Artif. Intell. Res.
  • 2005
We present a uniform non-monotonic solution to the problems of reasoning about action on the basis of an argumentation-theoretic approach. Our theory is provably correct relative to a sensible
Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities
A semantics and proof theory of a system for defeasible argumentation in a logic-programming language with both weak and strong negation, where an argument is shown to be justified if the proponent can make the opponent run out of moves in whatever way the opponent attacks.
An argument-based approach to reasoning with specificity
Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logic
Dung-like argumentation semantics is provided for two key defeasible logics, of which one is ambiguity propagating and the other ambiguity blocking, which provides the first ambiguity blocking Dung- like argumentation system.
Semantics for a theory of defeasible reasoning
A formal semantics is established for Pollock’s theory of defeasible reasoning based on the argumentation-theoretic approach proposed by Dung and Bondarenko et al. that makes the theory become more comparable to other related frameworks.
An Abstract, Argumentation-Theoretic Approach to Default Reasoning
Computing ideal sceptical argumentation
Acceptability of arguments as 'logical uncertainty'
The definition of a system of argumentation that induces a novel concept of logical uncertainty over conclusions drawn from inconsistent databases is turned to.
Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks
It is shown that in a VAF certain arguments can be shown to be acceptable however the relative strengths of the values involved are assessed, which means that disputants can concur on the acceptance of arguments, even when they differ as to which values are more important, and hence that the possibility of persuasion should be possible.