The phrase "argument framework" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts related to discussions, debates, or analyses where a structured approach to presenting arguments is needed.
Example: "In her essay, she outlined an argument framework that clearly defined her main points and supporting evidence."
Alternatives: "argument structure" or "argument model".
Due to the dynamics of underlying theories, argument construction is not a monotonic process, which is different from the existing argumentation framework where arguments are constructed incrementally.
In this work we try to overcome this substantial process by providing a method to compute accepted arguments from an argumentation framework.
This gives rise to a directed graph, the abstract argumentation framework, where arguments are nodes and arrows represent the attack relation.
The status of arguments in the unaffected sub-framework remains unchanged, while the status of the affected arguments is computed in a special argumentation framework (called a conditioned argumentation framework, or briefly CAF) that is composed of an affected part and a conditioning part.
In this argumentation framework, the semantics of acceptance plays a fundamental role in the argument evaluation process.
First, the idea of splitting allows to divide an argumentation framework F in (two) smaller argumentation frameworks F 1, F 2, such that there are no attacks from arguments in F 2 to arguments in F 1 [136,137].
Thus, our dialogues can be seen as a distributed mechanism for successfully determining acceptability of claims (with respect to the semantics considered), while constructing argumentation frameworks and arguments for these claims.
We introduce the formalization of argumentation frameworks in terms of CSPs, where the arguments of the given framework represent the variables of the CSP with domains of 0 and 1.
In fact, abstract argumentation frameworks are just directed graphs where vertices play the role of arguments and edges indicate a certain conflict between the two connected arguments.
Different semantics of abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) provide different levels of decisiveness for reasoning about the acceptability of conflicting arguments.
