Abstract
Dung’s theory of abstract argumentation frameworks [1] led to the formalization of various argument-based semantics, which are actually particular forms of dealing with the issue of reinstatement. In this paper, we re-examine the issue of semantics from the perspective of postulates. In particular, we ask ourselves the question of which (minimal) requirements have to be fulfilled by any principle for handling reinstatement, and how this relates to Dung’s standard semantics. Our purpose is to shed new light on the ongoing discussion on which semantics is most appropriate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
Vreeswijk, G.A.W., Prakken, H.: Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In: Brewka, G., Moniz Pereira, L., Ojeda-Aciego, M., de Guzmán, I.P. (eds.) JELIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1919, pp. 239–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Cayrol, C., Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: Dialectical Proof Theories for the Credulous Preferred Semantics of Argumentation Frameworks. In: Benferhat, S., Besnard, P. (eds.) ECSQARU 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2143, pp. 668–679. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7, 25–75 (1997)
Governatori, G., Maher, M., Antoniou, G., Billington, D.: Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 14, 675–702 (2004)
ASPIC-consortium: Deliverable D2.5: Draft formal semantics for ASPIC system (2005)
Horty, J.: Argument construction and reinstatement in logics for defeasible reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9, 1–28 (2001)
Prakken, H.: Intuitions and the modelling of defeasible reasoning: some case studies. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning (NMR 2002), Toulouse, France, pp. 91–99 (2002)
Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: An axiomatic account of formal argumentation. In: Proceedings of the AAAI 2005, pp. 608–613 (2005)
Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. Technical Report UU-CS-2006-023, Institute of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University (2006)
Caminada, M.: Contamination in formal argumentation systems. In: Proceedings of the 17th Belgium-Netherlands Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC), pp. 59–65 (2005)
Verheij, B.: Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: admissible sets and argumentation stages. In: Meyer, J.J., van der Gaag, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the Eighth Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence (NAIC 1996), Utrecht University, Utrecht, pp. 357–368 (1996)
Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: On sceptical versus credulous acceptance for abstract argument systems. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3229, pp. 462–473. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Dimopoulos, Y., Nebel, B., Toni, F.: Finding Admissible and Preferred Arguments Can be Very Hard. In: Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2000), pp. 53–61 (2000)
Prakken, H.: Commonsense reasoning. Technical report, Institute of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University (2004) (reader)
Urquhart, A.: Basic many-valued logic. In: Gabbay, D., Günthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. 2, pp. 249–295. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2001)
Hähnle, R.: Advanced many-valued logic. In: Gabbay, D., Günthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. 2, pp. 297–395. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2001)
Caminada, M.: For the sake of the Argument. Explorations into argument-based reasoning, Doctoral dissertation Free University, Amsterdam (2004)
Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D.: Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of logic and computation 9(2), 215–261 (1999)
Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Studies in defeasible argumentation. PhD thesis at Free University of Amsterdam (1993)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Caminada, M. (2006). On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds) Logics in Artificial Intelligence. JELIA 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4160. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11853886_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11853886_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-39625-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-39627-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)