A survey of different approaches to support in argumentation systems. (5th September 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cohen, Andrea; Gottifredi, Sebastian; García, Alejandro J.; Simari, Guillermo R.
• Is Part Of: Knowledge engineering review. Volume 29:Number 5(2014)
• Page Start: 513
• Page End: 550
• Publication Date: 2013-09-05
• Subjects: Expert systems (Computer science) -- Periodicals; 006.33
• DOI: 10.1017/S0269888913000325
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0269-8889

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="normal"> <title>Abstract</title> <p>In the last decades, most works in the literature have been devoted to study argumentation formalisms that focus on a defeat relation among arguments. Recently, the study of a support relation between arguments regained attention among researchers; the bulk of the research has been centered on the study of support within the context of abstract argumentation by considering support as an explicit interaction between arguments. However, there exist other approaches that take support into account in a different setting. This article surveys several interpretations of the notion of support as proposed in the literature, such as deductive support, necessary support, evidential support, subargument, and backing, among others. The aim is to provide a comprehensive study where similarities and differences among these interpretations are highlighted, as well as discuss how they are addressed by different argumentation formalisms.</p> </abstract>