On the study of acceptability in weighted argumentation frameworks through four-state labelling semantics

IF 0.7 4区 数学 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS
Stefano Bistarelli, Carlo Taticchi
{"title":"On the study of acceptability in weighted argumentation frameworks through four-state labelling semantics","authors":"Stefano Bistarelli, Carlo Taticchi","doi":"10.1093/logcom/exad039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Computational Argumentation provides tools for both modelling and reasoning with controversial information. Abstract Argumentation Frameworks represent the building blocks in this field and allow one to model the relationships between arguments with the ultimate goal of establishing their acceptability. Arguments can be evaluated through sets of criteria, called semantics, which distinguish among various justification states. For example, an argument may be accepted, rejected, ignored or even marked as undecided. This paper considers Weighted Argumentation Frameworks and proposes a novel labelling semantics that differentiates four states and generalizes existing approaches.","PeriodicalId":50162,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Logic and Computation","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Logic and Computation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exad039","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Computational Argumentation provides tools for both modelling and reasoning with controversial information. Abstract Argumentation Frameworks represent the building blocks in this field and allow one to model the relationships between arguments with the ultimate goal of establishing their acceptability. Arguments can be evaluated through sets of criteria, called semantics, which distinguish among various justification states. For example, an argument may be accepted, rejected, ignored or even marked as undecided. This paper considers Weighted Argumentation Frameworks and proposes a novel labelling semantics that differentiates four states and generalizes existing approaches.
基于四状态标记语义的加权论证框架可接受性研究
计算论证为有争议信息的建模和推理提供了工具。论证框架代表了该领域的构建模块,并允许人们对论证之间的关系进行建模,最终目标是建立它们的可接受性。可以通过一组称为语义的标准来评估参数,这些标准可以区分各种证明状态。例如,一个论点可能被接受、拒绝、忽略,甚至被标记为未决定。本文考虑了加权论证框架,提出了一种区分四种状态的标记语义,并对现有方法进行了推广。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Logic and Computation
Journal of Logic and Computation 工程技术-计算机:理论方法
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
14.30%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Logic has found application in virtually all aspects of Information Technology, from software engineering and hardware to programming and artificial intelligence. Indeed, logic, artificial intelligence and theoretical computing are influencing each other to the extent that a new interdisciplinary area of Logic and Computation is emerging. The Journal of Logic and Computation aims to promote the growth of logic and computing, including, among others, the following areas of interest: Logical Systems, such as classical and non-classical logic, constructive logic, categorical logic, modal logic, type theory, feasible maths.... Logical issues in logic programming, knowledge-based systems and automated reasoning; logical issues in knowledge representation, such as non-monotonic reasoning and systems of knowledge and belief; logics and semantics of programming; specification and verification of programs and systems; applications of logic in hardware and VLSI, natural language, concurrent computation, planning, and databases. The bulk of the content is technical scientific papers, although letters, reviews, and discussions, as well as relevant conference reviews, are included.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信