In this paper we motivate and formalise a framework that organises Dung argumentation frameworks into a hierarchy. Argumentation over preference information in a level n Dung framework is then used to resolve conflicts between arguments in a level n-1 framework. We then re-examine the issue of Dung’s acceptability semantics for arguments from the perspective of hierarchical argumentation.


Multiagent System Preference Information Argumentation Framework 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., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Automated Reasoning 29(2), 125–169 (2002)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Kaci, S.: On generation of bipolar goals in argumentation-based negotiation. In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3366, pp. 192–207. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkinson, L.: What Should We Do?: Computational Representation of Persuasive Argument in Practical Reasoning. PhD thesis, Dept. Computer Science, University of Liverpool (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Practical first-order argumentation. In: Proc. 20th American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2005), pp. 590–595 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brewka, G.: Well-founded semantics for extended logic programs with dynamic preferences. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 4(19) (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caminada, M.: For the sake of the Argument. Explorations into argument-based reasoning. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Free University, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Hitchcock, D., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: A framework for deliberation dialogues. In: Hansen, H.V., et al. (eds.) Proc. Fourth Biennial Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA 2001), Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D.: Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of logic and computation 9(2), 215–261 (1999)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Modgil, S.: Nested argumentation and its application to decision making over actions. In: Parsons, S., Maudet, N., Moraitis, P., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 4049, pp. 57–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11, 481–518 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7, 25–75 (1997)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walton, D.N.: Argument Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wooldridge, M., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: On the meta-logic of arguments. In: AAMAS 2005: Proc. Fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 560–567. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Modgil
    • 1
  1. 1.Advanced Computation LabCRUKLondon

Personalised recommendations