On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation

  • Martin Caminada
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4160)


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.


Argumentation Framework Formal Argumentation Complete Extension Proof Procedure Nonmonotonic Logic 
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.
    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)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7, 25–75 (1997)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Governatori, G., Maher, M., Antoniou, G., Billington, D.: Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 14, 675–702 (2004)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ASPIC-consortium: Deliverable D2.5: Draft formal semantics for ASPIC system (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horty, J.: Argument construction and reinstatement in logics for defeasible reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9, 1–28 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: An axiomatic account of formal argumentation. In: Proceedings of the AAAI 2005, pp. 608–613 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. Technical Report UU-CS-2006-023, Institute of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caminada, M.: Contamination in formal argumentation systems. In: Proceedings of the 17th Belgium-Netherlands Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC), pp. 59–65 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prakken, H.: Commonsense reasoning. Technical report, Institute of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University (2004) (reader)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Caminada, M.: For the sake of the Argument. Explorations into argument-based reasoning, Doctoral dissertation Free University, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D.: Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of logic and computation 9(2), 215–261 (1999)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Studies in defeasible argumentation. PhD thesis at Free University of Amsterdam (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Caminada
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations