Undercutting in argumentation systems

Abstract : Rule-based argumentation systems are developed for reasoning about defeasible information. They take as input a theory made of a set of strict rules, which encode strict information, and a set of defeasible rules which describe general behaviour with exceptional cases. They build arguments by chaining such rules, define attacks between them, use a semantics for evaluating the arguments, and finally identify the plausible conclusions that follow from the rules. One of the main attack relations of such systems is the so-called undercutting which blocks the application of defeasible rules in some contexts. In this paper, we show that this relation is powerful enough to capture alone all the different conflicts in a theory. We present the first argumentation system that uses only undercutting and fully characterize both its extensions and its plausible conclusions under various acceptability semantics.
Complete list of metadatas

Cited literature [33 references]  Display  Hide  Download

Contributor : Open Archive Toulouse Archive Ouverte (oatao) <>
Submitted on : Friday, September 22, 2017 - 2:34:03 PM
Last modification on : Thursday, June 27, 2019 - 4:27:52 PM
Long-term archiving on : Saturday, December 23, 2017 - 1:25:50 PM


Files produced by the author(s)


  • HAL Id : hal-01592025, version 1
  • OATAO : 16846


Leila Amgoud, Farid Nouioua. Undercutting in argumentation systems. International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2015), Sep 2015, Quebec, Canada. pp. 267-281. ⟨hal-01592025⟩



Record views


Files downloads