Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Argumentation for Practical Reasoning: An Axiomatic Approach

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
PRIMA 2016: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems (PRIMA 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 9862))

  • 806 Accesses

Abstract

An argument system could be viewed as a pair of a set of argument and a binary attack relation between arguments. The semantics of argumentation rests on the acceptability of arguments and the structure of arguments and their attack relations. While there is a relatively good understanding of the acceptability of arguments, the same can not be said about their structure and attack relations. In this paper, we present an axiomatic analysis of the attack relations of rule-based argument systems by presenting a set of simple and intuitive properties and showing that they indeed determine an uniquely defined common attack relations for rule-based argument systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The materials in Sects. 4, 5, 6 are from a recent paper [19]. The materials in Sects. 7, 8 are new.

  2. 2.

    \(d \prec d'\) means that d is less preferred than \(d'\).

  3. 3.

    D,P,T,A stand for Dean, Professor , Teach and Administrator respectively.

  4. 4.

    a reflexive, transitive and antisymmetric relation.

References

  1. Amgoud, L.: Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 55(9), 2028–2048 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Integrating preference ordering into argument-based reasoning. In: Proceedings of ESQUARU-FAPS (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Infering from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation framework. Int J. Autom. Reasoning 29(2), 197–215 (2002)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Semantics of abstract argument systems. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, New York (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Atkinson, K.: Abstract argumentation and values. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, New York (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argumentation in legal reasoning. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, New York (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bench-Capon, J.M.T.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 429–448 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 93, 63–101 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Brewka, G.: Preferred subtheories: an extended logical framework for default reasoning. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 1989, pp. 1043–1048. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brewka, G., Dunne, P.E., Woltran, S.: Relating the semantics of abstract dialectical framework and standard AF. In: Proceedings of IJCAI (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Preferred answer sets for extended logic programs. Artif. Intell. 109, 297–356 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Brewka, G., Niemelä, I., Truszczynski, M.: Preferences and nonmonotonic reasoning. AI Mag. 29(4), 69–78 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171, 286–310 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Caminada, M., Modgil, S., Oren, N.: Preferences and unrestricted rebut. In: Proceedings of Comma 2014 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cayrol, C., Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: On decision problems related to the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 377–403 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Davey, B.A., Priestley, H.A.: Introduction to Lattices and Order. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T., Tompits, H.: A framework for compiling preferences in logic programs. Theory Pract. Logic Program. 3(2), 129–187 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Dung, P.M.: An axiomatic analysis of structured argumentation with priorities. Artif. Intell. 231, 107–150 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Dung, P.M.: A canonical semantics for structured argumentation with priorities. In: Baroni, P. (ed.) Proceedings of Comma 2016. IOS Press (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dung, P.M., Sartor, G.: The modular logic of private international law. Artif. Intell. Law 19, 233–261 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dung, P.M., Thang, P.M.: Closure and consistency and logic-associated argumentation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 49, 79–109 (2014)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Dung, P.M., Thang, P.M.: Towards (probabilistic) argumentation for jury-based dispute resolution. In: COMMA, pp. 171–182 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person gamescceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Dung, P.M.: An axiomatic analysis of structured argumentation for prioritized default reasoning. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2014 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, New York (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gabbay, D.M.: Equational approach to argumentation networks. Argument Comput. (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Garcia, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. TPLP 4(1–2), 95–138 (2004)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Gelfond, M., Son, T.C.: Reasoning with prioritized defaults. In: Dix, J., Moniz Pereira, L., Przymusinski, T.C. (eds.) LPKR 1997. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1471, pp. 164–223. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Pearl, J., Geffner, H.: Conditional entailment: bridging two approaches to default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 53, 209–244 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Hunter, A.: Probabilistic qualification of attack in abstract argumentation. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 55(1), 607–638 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Hunter, A., Thimm, M.: Probabilistic argument graphs for argumentation lotteries. In: Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2014). IOS Press (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hunter, A., Williams, M.: Aggregating evidence about positive and negative effects of treatments. Artif. Intell. Med. 56, 173–190 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Li, H., Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Probabilistic argumentation frameworks. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 7132, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Martinez, D.C., Garcia, A.J., Simari, G.R.: On acceptability in abstract argumentation frameworks with an extended defeat relation. In: Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E. (eds.) Proceedings of International Conference on “Computational Models of Arguments”. IOS Press (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artif. Intell. 197, 361–397 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: The aspic+ framework for structured argumenttion: a tutorial. J. Arguments Comput. 5, 31–62 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. J. Arguments Comput. 1, 93–124 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. J. Appl. Non-Class. Logics 7(1), 25–75 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Rintanen, J.: Lexicographic priorities in default logics. Artif. Intell. 106, 221–265 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Schaub, T., Wang, K.: A comparative study of logic programs with preferences. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2001. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Vreeswijk, G.: Abstract argumentation systems. Artif. Intell. 90, 225–279 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Matteo Baldoni, Amit K. Chopra, Tran Cao Son, Katsutoshi Hirayama, Paolo Torroni for the invitation to include this paper in the proceedings of Prima2016.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Asian Institute of Technology, Khlong Luang, Thailand

    Phan Minh Dung

Authors
  1. Phan Minh Dung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Phan Minh Dung .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Informatica, Università degli Studi di Torino , Torino, Italy

    Matteo Baldoni

  2. Computing and Communications, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom

    Amit K. Chopra

  3. Department of Computer Science, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA

    Tran Cao Son

  4. Graduate School of Maritime Sciences, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan

    Katsutoshi Hirayama

  5. Dept. di Informatica: Sci. e Ingegneria, Universitá di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Paolo Torroni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Dung, P.M. (2016). Argumentation for Practical Reasoning: An Axiomatic Approach. In: Baldoni, M., Chopra, A., Son, T., Hirayama, K., Torroni, P. (eds) PRIMA 2016: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. PRIMA 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9862. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44832-9_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44832-9_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44831-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-44832-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation