Abstract
AbstractArguments in structured argumentation are usually defined as trees. This introduces both conceptual redundancy and inefficiency in standard methods of implementation. We introduce rule-minimal arguments and argument graphs to solve these problems, studying their use in assumption-based argumentation (ABA), a well-known form of structured argumentation. In particular, we define a new notion of graph-based dispute derivations for determining acceptability of claims under the grounded semantics in ABA, study formal properties and present an experimental evaluation thereof.KeywordsDeductive SystemStructure ArgumentationAbstract ArgumentationDefeasible LogicOpponent ArgumentThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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.
