Abstract
Given a logic-based argumentation framework built over a knowledge base in a logical language and a query in that language. The query is universally accepted if it is entailed from all extensions. As shown in [2, 14], universal acceptance is different from skeptical acceptance as a query may be entailed from different arguments distributed over all extensions but not necessarily skeptical ones. In this paper we provide a dialectical proof theory for universal acceptance in coherent logic-based argumentation frameworks. We prove its finiteness, soundness, completeness, consistency and study its dispute complexity. We give an exact characterization for non-universal acceptance and provide an upper-bound for universal acceptance.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
