A formal characterization of the outcomes of rule-based argumentation systems (SUM 2013)
Résumé
Rule-based argumentation systems are developed for reasoning about defeasible information. As a major feature, their logical language distinguishes between strict rules and defeasible ones. This paper presents the first study on the outcomes of such systems under various semantics such as naive, stable, preferred, ideal and grounded. For each of these semantics, it characterizes both the extensions and the set of plausible inferences drawn by these systems under a few intuitive postulates.
Origine : Fichiers produits par l'(les) auteur(s)
Loading...