A Parameterised Hierarchy of Argumentation

Title: A Parameterised Hierarchy of Argumentation

Research Question: How can a hierarchy of argumentation semantics be defined and applied to different notions of attack, leading to the development of a general proof theory?

Methodology: The researchers propose a parameterised hierarchy of argumentation semantics based on different notions of attack (undercuts and rebuts). They define acceptability and justified arguments, explore relationships between notions of justifiability, and present a general proof theory.

Results: They prove the equivalence and subset relationships between the semantics, examine essential properties like the coherence principle and consistency, and apply the hierarchy to existing semantics like the well-founded semantics with explicit negation (WFSX). They also develop a general proof theory based on dialog trees, which is shown to be sound and complete with respect to the argumentation semantics.

Implications: The parameterised hierarchy of argumentation semantics provides a flexible framework for defining and comparing different notions of attack. The general proof theory based on dialog trees can be applied to any instance of an abstract argumentation framework, making it a valuable tool for researchers in the field.

Link to Article: https://arxiv.org/abs/0311008v1 Authors: arXiv ID: 0311008v1