Argumentation for Practical Reasoning: An Axiomatic Approach

  • Phan Minh DungEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9862)


An argument system could be viewed as a pair of a set of argument and a binary attack relation between arguments. The semantics of argumentation rests on the acceptability of arguments and the structure of arguments and their attack relations. While there is a relatively good understanding of the acceptability of arguments, the same can not be said about their structure and attack relations. In this paper, we present an axiomatic analysis of the attack relations of rule-based argument systems by presenting a set of simple and intuitive properties and showing that they indeed determine an uniquely defined common attack relations for rule-based argument systems.


Abstract Argumentation Argumentation Framework Argument System Complete Extension Attack Relation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Many thanks to Matteo Baldoni, Amit K. Chopra, Tran Cao Son, Katsutoshi Hirayama, Paolo Torroni for the invitation to include this paper in the proceedings of Prima2016.


  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L.: Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 55(9), 2028–2048 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Integrating preference ordering into argument-based reasoning. In: Proceedings of ESQUARU-FAPS (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Infering from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation framework. Int J. Autom. Reasoning 29(2), 197–215 (2002)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Semantics of abstract argument systems. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Atkinson, K.: Abstract argumentation and values. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argumentation in legal reasoning. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bench-Capon, J.M.T.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 93, 63–101 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brewka, G.: Preferred subtheories: an extended logical framework for default reasoning. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 1989, pp. 1043–1048. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (1989)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brewka, G., Dunne, P.E., Woltran, S.: Relating the semantics of abstract dialectical framework and standard AF. In: Proceedings of IJCAI (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Preferred answer sets for extended logic programs. Artif. Intell. 109, 297–356 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brewka, G., Niemelä, I., Truszczynski, M.: Preferences and nonmonotonic reasoning. AI Mag. 29(4), 69–78 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171, 286–310 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Caminada, M., Modgil, S., Oren, N.: Preferences and unrestricted rebut. In: Proceedings of Comma 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cayrol, C., Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: On decision problems related to the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 377–403 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davey, B.A., Priestley, H.A.: Introduction to Lattices and Order. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T., Tompits, H.: A framework for compiling preferences in logic programs. Theory Pract. Logic Program. 3(2), 129–187 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dung, P.M.: An axiomatic analysis of structured argumentation with priorities. Artif. Intell. 231, 107–150 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dung, P.M.: A canonical semantics for structured argumentation with priorities. In: Baroni, P. (ed.) Proceedings of Comma 2016. IOS Press (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dung, P.M., Sartor, G.: The modular logic of private international law. Artif. Intell. Law 19, 233–261 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dung, P.M., Thang, P.M.: Closure and consistency and logic-associated argumentation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 49, 79–109 (2014)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dung, P.M., Thang, P.M.: Towards (probabilistic) argumentation for jury-based dispute resolution. In: COMMA, pp. 171–182 (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person gamescceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dung, P.M.: An axiomatic analysis of structured argumentation for prioritized default reasoning. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gabbay, D.M.: Equational approach to argumentation networks. Argument Comput. (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Garcia, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. TPLP 4(1–2), 95–138 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gelfond, M., Son, T.C.: Reasoning with prioritized defaults. In: Dix, J., Moniz Pereira, L., Przymusinski, T.C. (eds.) LPKR 1997. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1471, pp. 164–223. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pearl, J., Geffner, H.: Conditional entailment: bridging two approaches to default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 53, 209–244 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hunter, A.: Probabilistic qualification of attack in abstract argumentation. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 55(1), 607–638 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hunter, A., Thimm, M.: Probabilistic argument graphs for argumentation lotteries. In: Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2014). IOS Press (2014)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hunter, A., Williams, M.: Aggregating evidence about positive and negative effects of treatments. Artif. Intell. Med. 56, 173–190 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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
  34. 34.
    Martinez, D.C., Garcia, A.J., Simari, G.R.: On acceptability in abstract argumentation frameworks with an extended defeat relation. In: Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E. (eds.) Proceedings of International Conference on “Computational Models of Arguments”. IOS Press (2006)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artif. Intell. 197, 361–397 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: The aspic+ framework for structured argumenttion: a tutorial. J. Arguments Comput. 5, 31–62 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. J. Arguments Comput. 1, 93–124 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. J. Appl. Non-Class. Logics 7(1), 25–75 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rintanen, J.: Lexicographic priorities in default logics. Artif. Intell. 106, 221–265 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schaub, T., Wang, K.: A comparative study of logic programs with preferences. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2001. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2001)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vreeswijk, G.: Abstract argumentation systems. Artif. Intell. 90, 225–279 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Asian Institute of TechnologyKhlong LuangThailand

Personalised recommendations