Abstract
This paper discusses two recent developments in the formal study of argumentation-based inference: work on preference-based abstract argumentation and on classical (deductive) argumentation. It is first argued that general models of the use of preferences in argumentation cannot leave the structure of arguments and the nature of attack and defeat unspecified. Then it is claimed that classical argumentation cannot model some common forms of defeasible reasoning in a natural way. In both cases it will be argued that the recently proposed ASPIC + framework for structured argumentation does not suffer from these limitations. In the final part of the paper the work of Marek Sergot on argumentation-based inference will be discussed in light of the preceding discussion.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: Bridging the Gap between Abstract Argumentation Systems and Logic. In: Godo, L., Pugliese, A. (eds.) SUM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5785, pp. 12–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: A Formal Analysis of Logic-Based Argumentation Systems. In: Deshpande, A., Hunter, A. (eds.) SUM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6379, pp. 42–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1–7 (1998)
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A model of reasoning based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34, 197–215 (2002)
Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Two Roles of Preferences in Argumentation Frameworks. In: Liu, W. (ed.) ECSQARU 2011. LNCS, vol. 6717, pp. 86–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Artikis, A., Sergot, M.J., Pitt, J.: An executable specification of a formal argumentation protocol. Artificial Intelligence 171, 776–804 (2007)
Baker, A.B., Ginsberg, M.L.: A theorem prover for prioritized circumscription. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 463–467 (1989)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 429–448 (2003)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Sergot, M.J.: Towards a rule-based representation of open texture in law. In: Walter, C. (ed.) Computing Power and Legal Language, pp. 39–60. Greenwood/Quorum Press, Westport (1988)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence 128, 203–235 (2001)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)
Bex, F.J.: Evidence for a Good Story. A Hybrid Theory of Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence. Doctoral dissertation Faculty of Law, University of Groningen (2009)
Bex, F.J., Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D.N.: Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 12, 125–165 (2003)
Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93, 63–101 (1997)
Bondarenko, A., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An assumption-based fromework for nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning, pp. 171–189 (1993)
Brewka, G.: Preferred subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1989), pp. 1043–1048 (1989)
Brewka, G.: Nonmonotonic Reasoning: Logical Foundations of Commonsense. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)
Caminada, M.: On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Caminada, M.: On the issue of contraposition of defeasible rules. In: Besnard, P., Doutre, S., Hunter, A. (eds.) Proceedings of Computational Models of Argument, COMMA 2008, pp. 109–115. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)
Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence 171, 286–310 (2007)
Caminada, M., Wu, Y.: On the limitations of abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC 2011), Gent, Belgium (2011)
Cayrol, C.: On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence-based entailment. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1995), pp. 1443–1448 (1995)
Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Constrained argumentation frameworks. In: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference (KR 2006), pp. 112–122. AAAI Press (2006)
Dung, P.M.: An argumentation semantics for logic programming with explicit negation. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Logic Programming Conference, pp. 616–630. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n–person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 199–218. Springer, Berlin (2009)
Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 171, 642–674 (2007)
Dunne, P.E., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Weighted argument systems: basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results. Artificial Intelligence 175, 457–486 (2011)
Garcia, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4, 95–138 (2004)
Ginsberg, M.L.: AI and nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Gabbay, D., Hogger, C.J., Robinson, J.A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, pp. 1–33. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1994)
Gordon, T.F.: The Pleadings Game: formalizing procedural justice. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 10–19. ACM Press, New York (1993)
Gorogiannis, N., Hunter, A.: Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical-logic arguments: postulates and properties. Artificial Intelligence 175, 1479–1497 (2011)
Hage, J.C.: A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 199–273 (1996)
Hanks, S., McDermott, D.: Default reasoning, nonmonotonic logics and the frame problem. In: Proceedings of the 5th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1986), pp. 328–333 (1986)
Horty, J.: Some direct theories of nonmonotonic inheritance. In: Gabbay, D., Hogger, C.J., Robinson, J.A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, pp. 111–187. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1994)
Horty, J., Thomason, R.H., Touretzky, D.S.: A skeptical theory of inheritance in nonmonotonic semantic networks. Artificial Intelligence 42, 311–348 (1990)
Hunter, A.: Reasoning about the appropriateness of proponents for arguments. In: Proceedings of the 23rd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2008), pp. 89–94 (2008)
Israel, D.: What’s wrong with non-monotonic logic? In: Proceedings of the First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1980), pp. 99–101 (1980)
Jakobovits, H.: On the Theory of Argumentation Frameworks. Doctoral dissertation Free University Brussels (2000)
Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D.: Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 9, 215–261 (1999)
Jefferys, B., Kelley, L.A., Sergot, M.J., Fox, J., Sternberg, M.J.E.: Capturing expert knowledge with argumentation: a case study in bioinformatics. Bioinformatics 22, 924–933 (2006)
Kakas, A.C., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abductive logic programming. Journal of Logic and Computation 2, 719–770 (1992)
Lin, F., Shoham, Y.: Argument systems. A uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the First International Conference, pp. 245–255. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo (1989)
Loui, R.P.: Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence 2, 100–106 (1987)
Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 173, 901–934 (2009)
Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: Reasoning about preferences in structured extended argumentation frameworks. In: Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Proceedings of Computational Models of Argument, COMMA 2010, pp. 347–358. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2010)
Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: Revisiting preferences and argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), pp. 1021–1026 (2011)
Nute, D.: Defeasible logic. In: Gabbay, D., Hogger, C.J., Robinson, J.A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, pp. 253–395. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1994)
Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 347–376 (2003)
Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11, 481–518 (1987)
Pollock, J.L.: Justification and defeat. Artificial Intelligence 67, 377–408 (1994)
Pollock, J.L.: Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)
Pollock, J.L.: A recursive semantics for defeasible reasoning. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 173–197. Springer, Berlin (2009)
Poole, D.L.: A logical framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 36, 27–47 (1988)
Prakken, H.: An argumentation framework in default logic. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 9, 91–132 (1993)
Prakken, H.: Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Doctoral dissertation Free University Amsterdam (1993)
Prakken, H.: Formalising ordinary legal disputes: a case study. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16, 333–359 (2008)
Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation 1, 93–124 (2010)
Prakken, H.: On the nature of argument schemes. In: Reed, C., Tindale, C. (eds.) Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation. An Examination of Douglas Walton’s Theories of Reasoning and Argument, pp. 167–185. College Publications, London (2010)
Prakken, H.: Reconstructing Popov v. Hayashi in a framework for argumentation with structured arguments and Dungean semantics. The Knowledge Engineering Review (2011) (to appear), http://www.cs.uu.nl/groups/IS/archive/henry/ker09.pdf
Prakken, H., Renooij, S.: Reconstructing causal reasoning about evidence: a case study. In: JURIX 2001: The Fourteenth Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, pp. 131–142. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2001)
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7, 25–75 (1997)
Prakken, H., Sergot, M.J.S.: Contrary-to-duty imperatives, defeasibility and violability. In: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, Oslo, Tano, pp. 296–318 (1994)
Prakken, H., Sergot, M.J.S.: Contrary-to-duty obligations. Studia Logica 57, 91–115 (1996)
Prakken, H., Sergot, M.J.S.: Dyadic deontic logic and contrary-to-duty obligations. In: Nute, D. (ed.) Defeasible Deontic Logic. Synthese Library, vol. 263, pp. 223–262. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1997)
Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132 (1980)
Rescher, N.: Plausible Reasoning. Van Gorcum, Assen (1976)
Rescher, N.: Dialectics: a Controversy-oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. State University of New York Press, Albany (1977)
Sartor, G.: Legal Reasoning: a Cognitive Approach to the Law. Springer, Berlin (2005)
Simari, G.R., Loui, R.P.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible argumentation and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53, 125–157 (1992)
Sombekke, J., van Engers, T.M., Prakken, H.: Argumentation structures in legal dossiers. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 277–281. ACM Press, New York (2007)
Toni, F., Sergot, M.J.: Argumentation and Answer Set Programming. In: Balduccini, M., Son, T.C. (eds.) Logic Programming, Knowledge Representation, and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. LNCS, vol. 6565, pp. 164–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Verheij, B.: An integrated view on rules and principles. In: van Kralingen, R.W., et al. (eds.) Legal Knowledge Based Systems. Foundations of Legal Knowledge Systems Proceedings of (JURIX 1996), pp. 25–38. Tilburg University Press, Tilburg (1996)
Verheij, B.: Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: admissible sets and argumentation stages. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence (NAIC 1996), Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 357–368 (1996)
Verheij, B.: Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: an approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11, 167–195 (2003)
Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Studies in Defeasible Argumentation. Doctoral dissertation Free University Amsterdam (1993)
Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90, 225–279 (1997)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Prakken, H. (2012). Some Reflections on Two Current Trends in Formal Argumentation. In: Artikis, A., Craven, R., Kesim Çiçekli, N., Sadighi, B., Stathis, K. (eds) Logic Programs, Norms and Action. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7360. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29414-3_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29414-3_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-29413-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-29414-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)