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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Phan Minh Thang
  • Source
    • "For many years, there has been substantial research on dialectical proof procedures for classical abstract argumentation. Recently, [21], [22] have proposed a unifying framework able to capture dialectical proof procedures for handling both credulous and skeptical acceptance in abstract argumentation. This framework is based on the notions of dispute derivation and base derivation. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We consider argumentation systems taking into account several attack relations of different strength. We focus on the impact of various strength attacks on the semantics of such systems, and particularly on the decision problem of credulous acceptance: namely, focussing on one particular argument, a classical issue is to compute a proof, under the form of an admissible set containing this argument. Taking into account attacks of various strength leads to search for the best proofs.
    Full-text · Conference Paper · Nov 2010
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Japanese “theory of presupposed ultimate facts” (called “Yoken-jijitsu-ron” in Japanese) for interpreting the Japanese civil code has been underway for over forty years mainly by judges in the Japanese Legal Training Institute, but not yet formalized in a mathematical way. This paper attempts to mathematically formalize this theory and presents the correspondence between the theory and logic programming with “negation as failure”. It is quite surprising that Japanese judges independently developed such a theory without knowing about logic programming.
    Preview · Conference Paper · Jan 2009
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Constrained argumentation frameworks (CAF) generalize Dung's frameworks by allowing additional constraints on arguments to be taken into account in the definition of acceptability of arguments. These constraints are expressed by means of a logical formula which is added to Dung's framework. The resulting system captures several other extensions of Dung's original system. To determine if a set of arguments is credulously inferred from a CAF, the notion of dialectical proof (alternating pros and cons arguments) is extended for Dung's frameworks in order to respect the additional constraint. The new constrained dialectical proofs are computed by using Answer Set Programming.
    Full-text · Conference Paper · Jan 2010
Show more