Graph extensions

Changing the argumentation graph: preferences, restrictions, burdens.

ModulePredicatesDescription
conflictArguments3The arguments attacking through a conflict argument (module conflictArguments), with metaConflicts: conflicts are then conclusions of the theory, and an argument attacks through the conflicts its conclusion has with others only while their arguments stand
superiority4When an argument is superior to another one (module superiority), by the preferences between their rules (sup(Rule, Other) in the context)
rebutRestriction1The restricted rebut (module rebutRestriction, a graphExtension): a rebut only succeeds on an argument whose top rule is defeasible
bp3The burdens of proof as part of the graph (module bp, a graphExtension): for an argument for bp(Statement) and an argument for Statement, the burdened one, an argument for -burdmet(Conclusion) (top rule artificial) is attacked as the burden of proof is, and rebuts or is rebutted by the burdened argument, depending on whether the grounded labelling labels it IN
defeasiblePref9The preferences between rules as conclusions of the theory (module defeasiblePref, a graphExtension): an argument for sup(Rule, Other) makes the attacks that preference invalidates fail, as long as it stands
defeasibleAllPref3The preferences between rules as conclusions of the theory, taken together (module defeasibleAllPref, a graphExtension): as defeasiblePref, but the attack argument is attacked by an argument for all the preferences invalidating it, preference(Preferences), supported by the arguments for each of them
standardPref1The preferences between the rules of the theory, applied to the attacks (module standardPref, a graphExtension): an attack fails when the attacked argument is superior to the attacker (see the module superiority)
abaPref4The preferences between the assumptions of ABA+ (module abaPref, a graphExtension, of the profile aba_plus; Čyras and Toni 2016): sup(Stronger, Weaker), closed transitively