Reasoning on the Web with Assumption-Based Argumentation

  • Francesca Toni
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7487)


This tutorial provides an overview of computational argumentation, focusing on abstract argumentation and assumption-based argumentation, how they relate, as well as possible uses of the latter in Web contexts, and in particular the Semantic Web and Social Networks. The tutorial outlines achievements to date as well as (some) open issues.


Multiagent System Logic Programming Description Logic Argumentation Scheme Horn Clause 
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.
    Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowledge Engineering Review 26(4), 365–410 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bench-Capon, T., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Art. Int. 171 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Black, E., Hunter, A., Pan, J.Z.: An Argument-Based Approach to Using Multiple Ontologies. In: Godo, L., Pugliese, A. (eds.) SUM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5785, pp. 68–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bondarenko, A., Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93(1-2), 63–101 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bondarenko, A., Toni, F., Kowalski, R.A.: An assumption-based framework for non-monotonic reasoning. In: Pereira, L.M., Nerode, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning (LPNMR 1993), pp. 171–189. MIT Press, Lisbon (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5-6), 286–310 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Craven, R., Toni, F., Hadad, A., Cadar, C., Williams, M.: Efficient support for medical argumentation. In: Eiter, T., McIlraith, S. (eds.) Proc. 13th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doran, P., Tamma, V.A.M., Palmisano, I., Payne, T.R.: Efficient argumentation over ontology correspondences. In: Sierra, C., Castelfranchi, C., Decker, K.S., Sichman, J.S. (eds.) AAMAS (2), pp. 1241–1242. IFAAMAS (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–358 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 170, 114–159 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.) Argumentation in AI, pp. 199–218. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, Special Issue on Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 642–674 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Krennwallner, T., Polleres, A.: Rules and Ontologies for the Semantic Web. In: Baroglio, C., Bonatti, P.A., Małuszyński, J., Marchiori, M., Polleres, A., Schaffert, S. (eds.) Reasoning Web. LNCS, vol. 5224, pp. 1–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. Artif. Intell. 172(12-13), 1495–1539 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gaertner, D., Toni, F.: Hybrid argumentation and its properties. In: Besnard, Doutre, Hunter (eds.) Proc. COMMA (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garcia, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1–2), 95–138 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gordon, T.F.: Hybrid reasoning with argumentation schemes. In: Grasso, F., Green, N., Kibble, R., Reed, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, CMNA 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, Special Issue on Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 875–896 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic. In: WWW, pp. 48–57 (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Reducing OWL Entailment to Description Logic Satisfiability. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 17–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Horrocks, I., Tessaris, S.: A conjunctive query language for description logic ABoxes. In: Proc. of the 17th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2000), pp. 399–404 (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jackson, M.: Mechanism theory. In: Derigs, U. (ed.) Optimization and Operations Research. EOLSS Publishers, Oxford (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kakas, A.C., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: Proceedings of The Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2003, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, July 14-18, pp. 883–890. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kirschner, P.A., Buckingham Shum, S.J., Carr, C.S. (eds.): Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making. Springer (2003) iSBN 1-85233-6641-1Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4(3-4), 275–296 (1996); also published in the book Logical Models of ArgumentationCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leite, J., Martins, J.: Social abstract argumentation. In: Walsh, T. (ed.) IJCAI 2011, Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI/AAAI, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, July 16-22, pp. 2287–2292 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Letia, I.A., Acalovschi, M.: Achieving Competence by Argumentation on Rules for Roles. In: Gleizes, M.-P., Omicini, A., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) ESAW 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3451, pp. 45–59. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Matt, P.-A., Toni, F., Stournaras, T., Dimitrelos, D.: Argumentation-based agents for eprocurement. In: Proc. AAMAS (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Matt, P.-A., Toni, F., Vaccari, J.R.: Dominant Decisions by Argumentation Agents. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds.) ArgMAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 6057, pp. 42–59. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Matt, P.-A., Toni, F.: A Game-Theoretic Measure of Argument Strength for Abstract Argumentation. In: Hölldobler, S., Lutz, C., Wansing, H. (eds.) JELIA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5293, pp. 285–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2008), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Motik, B., Rosati, R.: Reconciling description logics and rules. J. ACM 57(5) (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Poole, D.: A logical framework for default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 36(1), 27–47 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.): Argumentation in AI. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rahwan, I., Madakkatel, M.I., Bonnefon, J.-F., Awan, R.N., Abdallah, S.: Behavioral experiments for assessing the abstract argumentation semantics of reinstatement. Cognitive Science 34(8), 1483–1502 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Reed, C.A., Rowe, G.: Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation. International Journal of AI Tools 13(4), 961–980 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shum, S.B.: Cohere: Towards web 2.0 argumentation. In: Besnard, P., Doutre, S., Hunter, A. (eds.) COMMA. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 172, pp. 97–108. IOS Press (2008)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Takahashi, T., Sawamura, H.: A logic of multiple-valued argumentation. In: 3rd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2004), pp. 800–807. IEEE Computer Society, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thang, P.M., Dung, P.M., Hung, N.D.: Towards a common framework for dialectical proof procedures in abstract argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 19(6), 1071–1109 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Toni, F.: Assumption-Based Argumentation for Closed and Consistent Defeasible Reasoning. In: Satoh, K., Inokuchi, A., Nagao, K., Kawamura, T. (eds.) JSAI 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4914, pp. 390–402. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Toni, F., Sergot, M.: Argumentation and Answer Set Programming. In: Balduccini, M., Son, T.C. (eds.) Logic Programming, Knowledge Representation, and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. LNCS, vol. 6565, pp. 164–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Toni, F., Torroni, P.: Bottom-Up Argumentation. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 7132, pp. 249–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wakaki, T., Sawamura, H., Nitta, K.: An integrated system of semantic web reasoning and argument-based reasoning. In: Advances in Intelligent Web Mastering, Proceedings of the 5th Atlantic Web Intelligence Conference, AWIC 2007, Fontainbleau, France. Advances in Soft Computing, June 25-27, vol. 43, pp. 349–356. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Walton, D.N.: Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press (2006)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Williams, M., Hunter, A.: Harnessing ontologies for argument-based decision-making in breast cancer. In: ICTAI (2), pp. 254–261. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhang, X., Lin, Z.: An Argumentation-Based Approach to Handling Inconsistencies in DL-Lite. In: Mertsching, B., Hund, M., Aziz, Z. (eds.) KI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5803, pp. 615–622. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations