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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: One of the most prominent tools for abstract argumentation is the Dung's framework, AF for short. It is accompanied by a variety of semantics including grounded, complete, preferred and stable. Although powerful, AFs have their shortcomings, which led to development of numerous enrichments. Among the most general ones are the abstract dialectical frameworks, also known as the ADFs. They make use of the so-called acceptance conditions to represent arbitrary relations. This level of abstraction brings not only new challenges, but also requires addressing existing problems in the field. One of the most controversial issues, recognized not only in argumentation, concerns the support cycles. In this paper we introduce a new method to ensure acyclicity of the chosen arguments and present a family of extension-based semantics built on it. We also continue our research on the semantics that permit cycles and fill in the gaps from the previous works. Moreover, we provide ADF versions of the properties known from the Dung setting. Finally, we also introduce a classification of the developed sub-semantics and relate them to the existing labeling-based approaches.
  • Source
    [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: Inspired by some logical considerations, the paper proposes a novel perspective on the use of two-players zero-sum games in abstract argumentation. The paper first introduces a second-order modal logic, within which all main Dung-style semantics are shown to be formalizable, and then studies the model checking game of this logic. The model checking game is then used to provide a systematic game theoretic proof procedure to test membership with respect to all those semantics formalizable in the logic. The paper discusses this idea in detail and illustrates it by providing a game for the so-called skeptical preferred and skeptical semi-stable semantics.
    Synthese 12/2013; DOI:10.1007/s11229-012-0237-1 · 0.64 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014