Skip Navigation



Journal of Logic and Computation Advance Access published online on June 26, 2009
Journal of Logic and Computation, doi:10.1093/logcom/exp032
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Thang, P. M.
Right arrow Articles by Hung, N. D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author, 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Original Papers

Towards a Common Framework for Dialectical Proof Procedures in Abstract Argumentation

Phan Minh Thang, Phan Minh Dung and Nguyen Duy Hung

Department of Computer Science, Asian Institute of Technology, GPO Box 4, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand.
E-mail: thangfm{at}ait.ac.th; dung{at}cs.ait.ac.th; nguyenduy.hung{at}ait.ac.th

We present a common framework for dialectical proof procedures for computing credulous, grounded, ideal and sceptical preferred semantics of abstract argumentation. The framework is based on the notions of dispute derivation and base derivation. Dispute derivation is a dialectical notion first introduced for computing credulous semantics in assumption-based argumentation, and adapted here for computing credulous semantics and grounded semantics. Base derivation is introduced for two purposes: (i) to characterize all preferred extensions containing a given argument, and (ii) to represent backtracking in the search for a dispute derivation. We prove the soundness of the proof procedures for any argumentation frameworks and their completeness for general classes of finitary or finite-branching argumentation frameworks containing the class of finite argumentation frameworks as a subclass.We also discuss related results.

Keywords: Abstract argumentation; dialectical; proof procedure; dispute resolution



References

  1. Amgoud L, Cayrol C. A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (2002) 34:197–215.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  2. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM. Legal case-based reasoning as practical reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law (2005) 13:93–131.[CrossRef]
  3. Baroni P, Giacomin M. Solving semantic problems with odd-length cycles inargumentation. Nielsen TD, Zhang NL, eds. (2003) Springer. 440–451. In ECSQARU, vol. 2711 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
  4. Baroni P, Giacomin M. On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence (2007) 171:675–700.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  5. Baroni P, Giacomin M. A systematic classification of argumentation frameworks where semantics agree. Besnard P, Doutre S, Hunter A, eds. (2008) IOS Press. 37–48. In Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, Toulouse, France, May 28–30, 2008, vol. 172 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications.
  6. Baroni P, Giacomin M, Guida G. Scc-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence (2005) 168:162–210.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  7. Bench-Capon TJM. Agreeing to differ: modelling persuasive dialogue between parties with different values. Informal Logic (2003) 22:2002.
  8. Bench-Capon TJM. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation (2003) 13:429–448.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Bench-Capon TJM, Atkinson K, Chorley A. Persuasion and value in legal argument. Journal of Logic and Computation (2005) 15:1075–1097.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Bench-Capon TJM, Sartor G. A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence (2003) 150:97–143.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  11. Bondarenko A, Dung PM, Kowalski RA, Toni F. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence (1997) 93:63–101.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  12. Caminada M. Semi-stable semantics. Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM, eds. (2006) IOS Press. 121–130. In COMMA, vol. 144 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications.
  13. Caminada M. An algorithm for computing semi-stable semantics. In: Technical Report UU-CS-2007-010 (2007) Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University.
  14. Cayrol C, Doutre S, Mengin J. On decision problems related to the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation (2003) 13:377–403.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Coste-Marquis S, Devred C, Marquis P. Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks. (2005) IEEE Computer Society. 568–572. In Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2005).
  16. Doutre S, Mengin J. Preferred extensions of argumentation frameworks: query answering and computation. (2001) Springer. 272–288. In First International Joint Conference Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2001), vol. of 2083 Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence.
  17. Dung PM. Negations as hypotheses: an abductive foundation for logic programming. (1991) 3–17. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Logic Programming.
  18. Dung PM. Logic programming as dialogue games. In: Technical report (1993) Bangkok: Division of Computer Science, Asian Institute of Technology.
  19. Dung PM. An argumentation theoretic foundation for logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming (1995) 22:151–177.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  20. Dung PM. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence (1995) 77:321–358.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  21. Dung PM, Kowalski RA, Toni F. Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence (2006) 170:114–159.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  22. Dung PM, Kowalski RA, Toni F. Assumption-based argumentation. In. In: Argumentation in AI—Rahwan I, Simari G, eds. (2009) Springer.
  23. Dung PM, Mancarella P, Toni F. Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence (2007) 171:642–674.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  24. Dung PM, Thang PM. A sound and complete dialectical proof procedure for skeptical preferred argumentation. In. In: proceedings LPNMR-Workshop on Argumentation and Non-monotonic Reasoning (ArgNMR07) (2007) Arizona.
  25. Dung PM, Thang PM. Towards an argument-based model of legal doctrines in common law of contracts. In. In: 9th International Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA) (September 2008).
  26. Dung PM, Thang PM, Toni F. Towards argumentation-based contract negotiation. (2008) 134–146. In International Conference on Computational Models of Argument.
  27. Dunne PE. The computational complexity of ideal semantics I: Abstract argumentation frameworks. In. In: Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, Toulouse, France, May 28–30, 2008—Besnard P, Doutre S, Hunter A, eds. (2008) IOS Press. 147–158. vol. 172 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications.
  28. Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM. Coherence in finite argument systems. Artificial Intelligence (2002) 141:187–203.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  29. Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM. Two party immediate response disputes: properties and efficiency. Artificial Intelligence (2003) 149:221–250.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  30. Eshghi K, Kowalski RA. Abduction compared with negation by failure. (1989) The MIT Press. 234–254. In Logic Programming: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference.
  31. Gaertner D, Toni F. CaSAPI - a system for credulous and sceptical argumentation. In. In: First International Workshop on Argumentation and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Arizona, USA (2007).
  32. Gaertner D, Toni F. Hybrid argumentation and its properties. (2008) IOS Press. 183–195. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA08).
  33. García AJ, Simari GR. Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (2004) 4:95–138.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  34. Governatori G, Maher MJ, Antoniou G, Billington D. Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. Journal of Logic and Computation (2004) 14:675–702.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Jakobovits H, Vermeir D. Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. (1999) 53–62. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law.
  36. Kakas A, Kowalski R, Toni F. Abductive logic programming. Journal of Logic and Computation (1993) 6:719–770.
  37. Kakas A, Toni F. Computing argumentation in logic programming. Journal of Logic and Computation (1999) 9:515–562.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Kraus S, Sycara KP, Evenchik A. Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence (1998) 104:1–69.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  39. Lewis HR, Papadimitriou C. Elements of the Theory of Computation (1998) Prentice-Hall.
  40. Lin F, Shoham Y. Argument systems: a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. (1989) SanFrancisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. 245–255. In Proceedings First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.
  41. Modgil S. Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence (2009) 173:901–934.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  42. Modgil S, Caminada M. Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In. In: Argumentation in AI—Rahwan I, Simari G, eds. (2009) Springer.
  43. Morge M. Computing argumentation for decision making in legal disputes. (2008) Springer. 203–216. In Computable Models of the Law: Languages, Dialogue, Games, Ontologies, vol. 4884 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence.
  44. Nieves JC, Cortés U, Osorio M. Preferred extensions as stable models. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (2008) 8:527–543.[Web of Science]
  45. Parson S, Sierra C, Jennings N. Agent that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation (1998) 3:261–292.
  46. Pollock JL. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science (1987) 11:481–518.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  47. Prakken H. Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese (2001) 127.
  48. Prakken H. Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation (2005) 15:1009–1040.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Prakken H, Sartor G. A system for defeasible argumentation, with defeasible priorities. (1996) 510–524. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning.
  50. Prakken H, Sartor G. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics (1997) 7:25–75.
  51. Rahwan I, Sonenberg L, Dignum F. Towards interest-based negotiation. (2003) 773–780. In Proceedings of the second international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems.
  52. Rahwan I, Ramchurn SD, Jennings NR, McBurney P, Parsons S, Sonenberg L. Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review (2003) 4:343–375.
  53. Rescher N. Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge (1978) State University of New York Press.
  54. Simari GR, Loui RP. A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence (1992) 53:125–157.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  55. Toni F, Kakas AC. Computing the acceptability semantics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (1995) 928:401–415.
  56. Verheij B. Alabeling approach to the computation of credulous acceptance in argumentation. Veloso MM, ed. (2007) 623–628. In IJCAI 2007, Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Hyderabad, India, January 6–12, 2007.
  57. Vreeswijk G. Studies in defeasible argumentation (1993) Amsterdam, Holland: Vrije University. PhD thesis.
  58. Vreeswijk G. An algorithm to compute minimally grounded and admissible defence sets in argument systems. (2006) 109–120. In International Conference on Computational Models of Argument.
  59. Vreeswijk G, Prakken H. Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In. In: Proceedings of the European Workshop on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (2000) 239–253.
  60. Wooldridge M. An Introduction to Multiagent Systems (2002) JohnWiley & Sons.

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Thang, P. M.
Right arrow Articles by Hung, N. D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?