Abstract

We suggest a so-called "robust" semantics for a model of argumentation which represents arguments and their interactions, called "argumentation frameworks". We study a variety of additional definitions of acceptability of arguments; we explore the properties of these definitions; we describe their inter-relationships: e.g. robust models can be characterized using the minimal (well-founded) models of a meta-framework. The various definitions of acceptability of argument sets can all deal with contradiction within an argumentation framework. Keywords: Argumentation framework, semantics 1 Introduction In this paper we present semantics for a formal model of argumentation. As in other works such as [Pol94] and [Dun95], we abstract from the actual contents and form of the arguments themselves, and rather concentrate on the analysis of interactions between arguments. Argumentation-theoretic interpretations and proof-procedures are applicable in practical reasoning, legal reasoning ([KT96]...

Citations