Argumentation Context Systems: A Framework for Abstract Group Argumentation

  • Gerhard Brewka
  • Thomas Eiter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5753)


We introduce a modular framework for distributed abstract argumentation where the argumentation context, that is information about preferences among arguments, values, validity, reasoning mode (skeptical vs. credulous) and even the chosen semantics can be explicitly represented. The framework consists of a collection of abstract argument systems connected via mediators. Each mediator integrates information coming from connected argument systems (thereby handling conflicts within this information) and provides the context used in a particular argumentation module. The framework can be used in different directions; e.g., for hierarchic argumentation as typically found in legal reasoning, or to model group argumentation processes.


Acceptable State Argumentation Framework Argument System Reasoning Mode Prefer Extension 
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.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation. In: Proc. Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI 1998, pp. 1–7 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Value-based argumentation frameworks. In: Proc. 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, NMR 2002, Toulouse, France, pp. 443–454 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Binas, A., McIlraith, S.: Peer-to-peer query answering with inconsistent knowledge. In: Proc. 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 2008, Sydney, Australia, pp. 329–339 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brewka, G.: Preferred subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning. In: Proc. IJCAI 1989, pp. 1043–1048 (1989)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Equilibria in heterogeneous nonmonotonic multi-context systems. In: Proc. AAAI 2007, pp. 385–390 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caminada, M.: Semi-stable semantics. In: Proc. Computational Models of Argument, COMMA 2006, pp. 121–130 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P., Amgoud, L.: Theoretical and computational properties of preference-based argumentation. In: Proc. ECAI 2008, Patras, Greece, pp. 463–467 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dimopoulos, Y., Torres, A.: Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theor. Comput. Sci. 170(1-2), 209–244 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 642–674 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Coherence in finite argument systems. Artif. Intell. 141(1/2), 187–203 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. TPLP 4(1-2), 95–138 (2004)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Giunchiglia, F., Serafini, L.: Multilanguage hierarchical logics, or: how we can do without modal logics. Artificial Intelligence 65(1), 29–70 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Modgil, S.: Hierarchical argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 319–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. (2007) (to appear)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roelofsen, F., Serafini, L.: Minimal and absent information in contexts. In: Proc. IJCAI 2005, pp. 558–563 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thimm, M., Kern-Isberner, G.: A distributed argumentation framework using defeasible logic programming. In: Proc. Computational Models of Argument, COMMA 2008, pp. 381–392 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wiederhold, G.: Mediators in the architecture of future information systems. IEEE Computer 25(3), 38–49 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wooldridge, M., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: On the meta-logic of arguments. In: Proc. AAMAS 2005, pp. 560–567 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wyner, A.Z., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Modelling judicial context in argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings COMMA 2008, pp. 417–428 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerhard Brewka
    • 1
  • Thomas Eiter
    • 2
  1. 1.Universität LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Vienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations