Probabilistic Argumentation Frameworks – A Logical Approach

  • Dragan Doder
  • Stefan Woltran
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8720)


Abstract argumentation is nowadays a vivid field within artificial intelligence and has seen different developments recently. In particular, enrichments of the standard Dung frameworks have been proposed in order to model scenarios where probabilities or uncertain information have to be expressed. As for standard approaches of abstract argumentation, a uniform logical formalization for such frameworks is of great help in order to understand and compare different approaches. In this paper, we take a first step in this direction and characterize different semantics from the approach of Li et al in terms of probabilistic logic. This not only provides a uniform logical formalization but also might pave the way for future implementations.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Arieli, O., Caminada, M.W.A.: A QBF-based formalization of abstract argumentation semantics. J. Applied Logic 11(2), 229–252 (2013)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 619–641 (2007)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Besnard, P., Doutre, S.: Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments. In: Proc. NMR 2004, pp. 59–64 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cerutti, F., Dunne, P.E., Giacomin, M., Vallati, M.: A SAT-based Approach for Computing Extensions on Abstract Argumentation. In: Proc. TAFA (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doder, D.: A logic with big-stepped probabilities that can model nonmonotonic reasoning of system P. Publications de l’Institut Mathématique 90(104), 13–22 (2011)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dung, P.M., Thang, P.M.: Towards (probabilistic) argumentation for jury-based dispute resolution. In: Proc. COMMA. FAIA, vol. 216, pp. 171–182. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunne, P.E.: Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph-theoretic constraints. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 701–729 (2007)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dvořák, W., Järvisalo, M., Wallner, J.P., Woltran, S.: Complexity-sensitive decision procedures for abstract argumentation. Artif. Intell. 206, 53–78 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dvořák, W., Szeider, S., Woltran, S.: Abstract argumentation via monadic second order logic. In: Hüllermeier, E., Link, S., Fober, T., Seeger, B. (eds.) SUM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7520, pp. 85–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dyrkolbotn, S.K.: The same, similar, or just completely different? equivalence for argumentation in light of logic. In: Libkin, L., Kohlenbach, U., de Queiroz, R. (eds.) WoLLIC 2013. LNCS, vol. 8071, pp. 96–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Egly, U., Woltran, S.: Reasoning in argumentation frameworks using quantified boolean formulas. In: Proc. COMMA. FAIA, vol. 144, pp. 133–144. IOS Press (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Megiddo, N.: A logic for reasoning about probabilities. Inf. Comput. 87(1/2), 78–128 (1990)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fazzinga, B., Flesca, S., Parisi, F.: On the complexity of probabilistic abstract argumentation. In: Rossi, F. (ed.) Proc. IJCAI. IJCAI/AAAI (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grossi, D.: Argumentation in the view of modal logic. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S. (eds.) ArgMAS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6614, pp. 190–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grossi, D., van der Hoek, W.: Audience-based uncertainty in abstract argument games. In: Rossi, F. (ed.) Proc. IJCAI. IJCAI/AAAI (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hunter, A.: Some foundations for probabilistic abstract argumentation. In: Verheij, B., Szeider, S., Woltran, S. (eds.) Proc. COMMA. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 245, pp. 117–128. IOS Press (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hunter, A.: A probabilistic approach to modelling uncertain logical arguments. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning 54(1), 47–81 (2013)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hunter, A.: Probabilistic qualification of attack in abstract argumentation. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning 55(2), 607–638 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li, H., Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Probabilistic argumentation frameworks. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 7132, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ognjanović, Z., Perović, A., Rašković, M.: Logics with the qualitative probability operator. Logic Journal of the IGPL 16(2), 105–120 (2008)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ognjanović, Z., Rašković, M.: Some probability logics with new types of probability operators. J. Log. Comput. 9(2), 181–195 (1999)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ognjanović, Z., Rašković, M.: Some first-order probability logics. Theor. Comput. Sci. 247(1-2), 191–212 (2000)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thimm, M.: A probabilistic semantics for abstract argumentation. In: Proc. ECAI. FAIA, vol. 242, pp. 750–755. IOS Press (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wallner, J.P., Weissenbacher, G., Woltran, S.: Advanced SAT Techniques for Abstract Argumentation. In: Leite, J., Son, T.C., Torroni, P., van der Torre, L., Woltran, S. (eds.) CLIMA XIV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8143, pp. 138–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dragan Doder
    • 1
  • Stefan Woltran
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Science and CommunicationsUniversity of LuxembourgLuxembourg
  2. 2.Institute of Information SystemsVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations