Assumption-Based Argumentation for Epistemic and Practical Reasoning

  • Francesca Toni
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4884)


Assumption-based argumentation can serve as an effective computational tool for argumentation-based epistemic and practical reasoning, as required in a number of applications. In this paper we substantiate this claim by presenting formal mappings from frameworks for epistemic and practical reasoning onto assumption-based argumentation frameworks. We also correlate these mappings to formulations of epistemic and practical reasoning in abstract argumentation terms.


Practical Reasoning Inference Rule Logic Programming Deductive System Strict Rule 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bench-Capon, T., Prakken, H.: Justifying actions by accruing arguments. In: COMMA 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bondarenko, A., Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93(1-2), 63–101 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brewka, G.: Well-founded semantics for extended logic programs with dynamic preferences. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 4, 19 (1996)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: An axiomatic account of formal argumentation. In: Proc. AAAI (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dimopoulos, Y., Nebel, B., Toni, F.: On the computational complexity of assumption-based argumentation for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 141, 57–78 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dung, P.: The acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming and n-person game. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 170, 114–159 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation. In: 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2006) (September 2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, Special Issue on Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 642–674 (2007)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gaertner, D., Toni, F.: A credulous and sceptical argumentation system. In: Proceedings of ArgNMR (2007),
  11. 11.
    Gaertner, D., Toni, F.: On computing arguments and attacks in assumption-based argumentation. IEEE Intelligent Systems, Special Issue on Argumentation Technology 22(6), 24–33 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garcia, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Journal of Theory and Practice of Logic Prog. 4(1-2), 95–138 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Billington, D., Antoniou, G.: Argumentation semantics for defeasible logics. Journal of Logic and Computation 14(5), 675–702 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kakas, A., Mancarella, P., Dung, P.: The acceptability semantics for logic programs. In: Hentenryck, P.V. (ed.) Proc. ICLP, pp. 504–519. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kakas, A., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2003, pp. 883–890 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kakas, A.C., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: AAMAS, pp. 883–890 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abstract argumentation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law, Special Issue on Logical Models of Argumentation 4(3-4), 275–296 (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: On the relation between legal language and legal argument: assumptions, applicability and dynamic priorities. In: Proc. of the 5th ICAIL, pp. 1–10. ACM Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7(1), 25–75 (1997)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: The role of logic in computational models of legal argument: a critical survey. In: Kakas, A.C., Sadri, F. (eds.) Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2408, pp. 342–381. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rahwan, I., Amgoud, L.: An argumentation-based approach for practical reasoning. In: Proc. AAMAS 2006, pp. 347–354. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation for closed and consistent defeasible reasoning. In: Nitta, K., Tojo, S., Satoh, K. (eds.) Proceedings First International Workshop on Juris-informatics (JURISIN 2007), in association with The 21th Annual Conference of The Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence (JSAI 2007), 19 June (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesca Toni
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ComputingImperial College London 

Personalised recommendations