No Cover Image

Journal article 967 views 104 downloads

Senses of ‘argument’ in instantiated argumentation frameworks

Adam Wyner Orcid Logo, Trevor Bench-Capon, Paul Dunne, Federico Cerutti

Argument & Computation, Volume: 6, Issue: 1, Pages: 50 - 72

Swansea University Author: Adam Wyner Orcid Logo

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1080/19462166.2014.1002535

Abstract

Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) provide a fruitful basis for exploring issues of defeasible reasoning. Their power largely derives from the abstract nature of the arguments within the framework, where arguments are atomic nodes in an undifferentiated relation of attack. This abstraction conc...

Full description

Published in: Argument & Computation
ISSN: 1946-2166 1946-2174
Published: Taylor and Francis 2015
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa40673
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
first_indexed 2018-06-07T19:34:29Z
last_indexed 2018-11-14T14:11:24Z
id cronfa40673
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2018-11-14T08:21:46.5968995</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>40673</id><entry>2018-06-07</entry><title>Senses of &#x2018;argument&#x2019; in instantiated argumentation frameworks</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>51fa34a3136b8e81fc273fce73e88099</sid><ORCID>0000-0002-2958-3428</ORCID><firstname>Adam</firstname><surname>Wyner</surname><name>Adam Wyner</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2018-06-07</date><deptcode>SCS</deptcode><abstract>Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) provide a fruitful basis for exploring issues of defeasible reasoning. Their power largely derives from the abstract nature of the arguments within the framework, where arguments are atomic nodes in an undifferentiated relation of attack. This abstraction conceals different senses of argument, namely a single-step reason to a claim, a series of reasoning steps to a single claim, and reasoning steps for and against a claim. Concrete instantiations encounter difficulties and complexities as a result of conflating these senses. To distinguish them, we provide an approach to instantiating AFs in which the nodes are restricted to literals and rules, encoding the underlying theory directly. Arguments in these senses emerge from this framework as distinctive structures of nodes and paths. As a consequence of the approach, we reduce the effort of computing argumentation extensions, which is in contrast to other approaches. Our framework retains the theoretical and computational benefits of an abstract AF, distinguishes senses of argument, and efficiently computes extensions. Given the mixed intended audience of the paper, the style of presentation is semi-formal.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Argument &amp; Computation</journal><volume>6</volume><journalNumber>1</journalNumber><paginationStart>50</paginationStart><paginationEnd>72</paginationEnd><publisher>Taylor and Francis</publisher><issnPrint>1946-2166</issnPrint><issnElectronic>1946-2174</issnElectronic><keywords>abstract argumentation, instantiated argumentation, knowledge bases, graph</keywords><publishedDay>2</publishedDay><publishedMonth>1</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2015</publishedYear><publishedDate>2015-01-02</publishedDate><doi>10.1080/19462166.2014.1002535</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Computer Science</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>SCS</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><lastEdited>2018-11-14T08:21:46.5968995</lastEdited><Created>2018-06-07T15:49:59.7707835</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences</level><level id="2">Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Adam</firstname><surname>Wyner</surname><orcid>0000-0002-2958-3428</orcid><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Trevor</firstname><surname>Bench-Capon</surname><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Paul</firstname><surname>Dunne</surname><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>Federico</firstname><surname>Cerutti</surname><order>4</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>0040673-11062018165222.pdf</filename><originalFilename>ThreeSensesInstantiated.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2018-06-11T16:52:22.0270000</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>481477</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Version of Record</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><embargoDate>2018-06-11T00:00:00.0000000</embargoDate><documentNotes>Published in an Open Access journal.</documentNotes><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2018-11-14T08:21:46.5968995 v2 40673 2018-06-07 Senses of ‘argument’ in instantiated argumentation frameworks 51fa34a3136b8e81fc273fce73e88099 0000-0002-2958-3428 Adam Wyner Adam Wyner true false 2018-06-07 SCS Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) provide a fruitful basis for exploring issues of defeasible reasoning. Their power largely derives from the abstract nature of the arguments within the framework, where arguments are atomic nodes in an undifferentiated relation of attack. This abstraction conceals different senses of argument, namely a single-step reason to a claim, a series of reasoning steps to a single claim, and reasoning steps for and against a claim. Concrete instantiations encounter difficulties and complexities as a result of conflating these senses. To distinguish them, we provide an approach to instantiating AFs in which the nodes are restricted to literals and rules, encoding the underlying theory directly. Arguments in these senses emerge from this framework as distinctive structures of nodes and paths. As a consequence of the approach, we reduce the effort of computing argumentation extensions, which is in contrast to other approaches. Our framework retains the theoretical and computational benefits of an abstract AF, distinguishes senses of argument, and efficiently computes extensions. Given the mixed intended audience of the paper, the style of presentation is semi-formal. Journal Article Argument & Computation 6 1 50 72 Taylor and Francis 1946-2166 1946-2174 abstract argumentation, instantiated argumentation, knowledge bases, graph 2 1 2015 2015-01-02 10.1080/19462166.2014.1002535 COLLEGE NANME Computer Science COLLEGE CODE SCS Swansea University 2018-11-14T08:21:46.5968995 2018-06-07T15:49:59.7707835 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law Adam Wyner 0000-0002-2958-3428 1 Trevor Bench-Capon 2 Paul Dunne 3 Federico Cerutti 4 0040673-11062018165222.pdf ThreeSensesInstantiated.pdf 2018-06-11T16:52:22.0270000 Output 481477 application/pdf Version of Record true 2018-06-11T00:00:00.0000000 Published in an Open Access journal. true eng
title Senses of ‘argument’ in instantiated argumentation frameworks
spellingShingle Senses of ‘argument’ in instantiated argumentation frameworks
Adam Wyner
title_short Senses of ‘argument’ in instantiated argumentation frameworks
title_full Senses of ‘argument’ in instantiated argumentation frameworks
title_fullStr Senses of ‘argument’ in instantiated argumentation frameworks
title_full_unstemmed Senses of ‘argument’ in instantiated argumentation frameworks
title_sort Senses of ‘argument’ in instantiated argumentation frameworks
author_id_str_mv 51fa34a3136b8e81fc273fce73e88099
author_id_fullname_str_mv 51fa34a3136b8e81fc273fce73e88099_***_Adam Wyner
author Adam Wyner
author2 Adam Wyner
Trevor Bench-Capon
Paul Dunne
Federico Cerutti
format Journal article
container_title Argument & Computation
container_volume 6
container_issue 1
container_start_page 50
publishDate 2015
institution Swansea University
issn 1946-2166
1946-2174
doi_str_mv 10.1080/19462166.2014.1002535
publisher Taylor and Francis
college_str Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
department_str Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) provide a fruitful basis for exploring issues of defeasible reasoning. Their power largely derives from the abstract nature of the arguments within the framework, where arguments are atomic nodes in an undifferentiated relation of attack. This abstraction conceals different senses of argument, namely a single-step reason to a claim, a series of reasoning steps to a single claim, and reasoning steps for and against a claim. Concrete instantiations encounter difficulties and complexities as a result of conflating these senses. To distinguish them, we provide an approach to instantiating AFs in which the nodes are restricted to literals and rules, encoding the underlying theory directly. Arguments in these senses emerge from this framework as distinctive structures of nodes and paths. As a consequence of the approach, we reduce the effort of computing argumentation extensions, which is in contrast to other approaches. Our framework retains the theoretical and computational benefits of an abstract AF, distinguishes senses of argument, and efficiently computes extensions. Given the mixed intended audience of the paper, the style of presentation is semi-formal.
published_date 2015-01-02T03:51:46Z
_version_ 1763752548927275008
score 11.013731

Similar Items