Sentence examples for computing argumentation from inspiring English sources
Computing argumentation semantics via constraint programming has been addressed mainly by Amgoud and Devred [23] and Bistarelli and Santini [26 28], where the latter provide the system ConArg which is able to compute a wide range of semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks.
In this work we try to overcome this substantial process by providing a method to compute accepted arguments from an argumentation framework.
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.
Based on these rules, the argumentation tool computes consensual preferences which are used to parameterize a flexible querying process of a packaging database to retrieve the most relevant solution to pack a given food.
In our second arc – our abstraction level – we develop structured arguments, from which we induce abstract argumentation systems and compute the argumentation semantics to provide labelings of the acceptability status of each argument.
The principle of this method is to combine mathematical properties (e.g. symmetry, asymmetry, strong connectivity and irreflexivity) of graphs built from the argumentation system to compute sets of accepted arguments.
The benefit of such systems is that one may re-use engines for AFs to compute results for Carneades and potentially other argumentation models.
The procedures are adapted from (variants of) corresponding procedures for computing the credulous admissible semantics for assumption-based argumentation, proposed in [P.M. Dung, R.A. Kowalski, F. Toni, Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation, Artificial Intelligence 170 (2006) 114 159].
This is connoisseurial prose, not sustained argumentation.
Spurious race argumentation cuts both ways, however.
