Beyond Maxi-Consistent Argumentation Operators

  • Srdjan Vesic
  • Leendert van der Torre
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7519)


The question whether Dung’s abstract argumentation theory can be instantiated with classical propositional logic has drawn a considerable amount of attention among scientists in recent years. It was shown by Cayrol in 1995 that if direct undercut is used, then stable extensions of an argumentation system correspond exactly to maximal (for set inclusion) consistent subsets of the knowledge base from which the argumentation system was constructed. Until now, no other correspondences were found between the extensions of an argumentation framework and its knowledge base (except if preferences are also given at the input of the system). This paper’s contribution is twofold. First, we identify four intuitive conditions describing a class of attack relations which return extensions corresponding exactly to the maximal (for set inclusion) consistent subsets of the knowledge base. Second, we show that if we relax those conditions, it is possible to instantiate Dung’s abstract argumentation theory with classical propositional logic and obtain a meaningful result which does not correspond to the maximal consistent subsets of the knowledge base used for constructing arguments. Indeed, we define a whole class of instantiations that return different results. Furthermore, we show that these instantiations are sound in the sense that they satisfy the postulates from argumentation literature (e.g. consistency, closure). In order to illustrate our results, we present one particular instantiation from this class, which is based on cardinalities of minimal inconsistent sets a formula belongs to.


Argumentation Framework Inference Relation Classical Propositional Logic Argumentation System 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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: Bridging the Gap between Abstract Argumentation Systems and Logic. In: Godo, L., Pugliese, A. (eds.) SUM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5785, pp. 12–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: A new approach for preference-based argumentation frameworks. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: On the Equivalence of Logic-Based Argumentation Systems. In: Benferhat, S., Grant, J. (eds.) SUM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6929, pp. 123–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence Journal 171, 675–700 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence Journal 171(5-6), 286–310 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cayrol, C.: On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence-based entailment. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1995), pp. 1443–1448 (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence Journal 77, 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gabbay, D., Pigozzi, G., Rodrigues, O.: Common foundations for belief revision, belief merging and voting. In: Formal Models of Belief Change in Rational Agents (Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings) (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gorogiannis, N., Hunter, A.: Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties. Artificial Intelligence Journal 175, 1479–1497 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: On the measure of conflicts: Shapley inconsistency values. Artificial Intelligence Journal 174(14), 1007–1026 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Priest, G.: Paraconsistent logic. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 6, pp. 287–393. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shapley, L.: A value for n-person games. In: Contributions to the Theory of Games II, pp. 307–317. Princeton University Press (1953)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Srdjan Vesic
    • 1
  • Leendert van der Torre
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science and CommunicationUniversity of LuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations