Nonmonotonic Tools for Argumentation

  • Gerhard Brewka
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6341)


Dung’s argumentation frameworks (AFs) have become very popular as semantical tools in argumentation. We discuss a generalization of AFs called abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs). These frameworks are more flexible in that they allow arbitrary boolean functions to be used for the specification of acceptance conditions for nodes. We present the basic underlying definitions and give an example illustrating why they are useful. More precisely, we show how they can be used to provide a semantical foundation for Gordon, Prakken and Walton’s Carneades model of argumentation, lifting the limitation of this model to acyclic argument graphs.


Boolean Function Atomic Proposition Acceptance Condition Argumentation Framework Bayesian Belief Network 
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.
    Ballnat, S., Gordon, T. : Goal selection in argumentation processes. In: Proc. Computational Models of Argumentation (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brewka, G., Gordon, T.F.: Carneades and abstract dialectical frameworks: A reconstruction. In: Proc. COMMA (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brewka, G., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Proc. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 102–111 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    Farley, A.M., Freeman, K.: Burden of proof in legal argumentation. In: Proc. ICAIL 1995, pp. 156–164 (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 875–896 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gordon, T.F., Walton, D.: Proof burdens and standards. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 239–258 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grabmair, M., Gordon, T., Walton, D.: Probabilistic semantics for the Carneades argument model using Bayesian belief networks. In: Proc. Computational Models of Argumentation (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerhard Brewka
    • 1
  1. 1.Universität LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations