Conference Paper

A Unified Framework for Representation and Development of Dialectical Proof Procedures in Argumentation.

Conference: IJCAI 2009, Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Pasadena, California, USA, July 11-17, 2009
Source: DBLP

ABSTRACT We present an unified methodology for represen-tation and development of dialectical proof proce-dures in abstract argumentation based on the no-tions of legal environments and dispute derivations. A legal environment specifies the legal moves of the dispute parties while a dispute derivation de-scribes the procedure structure. A key insight of this paper is that the opponent moves determine the soundness of a dispute while the completeness of a dispute procedure depends on the proponent moves.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Assumption-based argumentation is a general-purpose argumentation framework with well-understood theoretical foundations and viable computational mechanisms (in the form of dispute derivations), as well as several applications. However, the existing computational mechanisms have several limitations, hindering their deployment in practice: (i) they are defined in terms of implicit parameters, that nonetheless need to be instantiated at implementation time; (ii) they are variations (for computing different semantics) of one another, but still require different implementation efforts; (iii) they reduce the problem of computing arguments to the problem of computing assumptions supporting these arguments, even though applications of argumentation require a justification of claims in terms of explicit arguments and attacks between them.In this context, the contribution of this paper is two-fold. Firstly, we provide a unified view of the existing (GB-, AB- and IB-)dispute derivations (for computation under the grounded, admissible and ideal semantics, respectively), by obtaining them as special instances of a single notion of X-dispute derivations that, in addition, renders explicit the implicit parameters in the original dispute derivations. Thus, X-dispute derivations address issues (i) and (ii). Secondly, we define structured X-dispute derivations, extending X-dispute derivations by computing explicitly the underlying arguments and attacks, in addition to assumptions. Thus, structured X-dispute derivations also address issue (iii). We prove soundness and completeness results for appropriate instances of (structured) X-dispute derivations, w.r.t. the grounded, admissible and ideal semantics, thus laying the necessary theoretical foundations for deployability thereof.
    Artificial Intelligence. 02/2013; 195:1–43.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The paper generalizes abstract argument games to cope with cases where proponent and opponent argue in front of an audience whose type is known only with uncertainty. The generalization, which makes use of basic tools from probability theory, is motivated by several examples and delivers a class of abstract argument games whose adequacy is proven robust against uncertainty.
    Proceedings of the Twenty-Third international joint conference on Artificial Intelligence; 08/2013
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Argumentation and answer set programming are two of the main knowledge representation paradigms that have emerged from logic programming for non-monotonic reasoning. This paper surveys recent work on using answer set programming as a mechanism for computing extensions in argumentation. The paper also indicates some possible directions for future work.
    04/2011: pages 164-180;

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014