Advertisement

Assumption-Based Argumentation for Closed and Consistent Defeasible Reasoning

  • Francesca Toni
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4914)

Abstract

Assumption-based argumentation is a concrete but generalpurpose argumentation framework that has been shown, in particular, to generalise several existing mechanisms for non-monotonic reasoning, and is equipped with a computational counterpart and an implemented system. It can thus serve as a computational tool for argumentation-based reasoning, and for automatising the process of finding solutions to problems that can be understood in assumption-based argumentation terms. In this paper we consider the problem of reasoning with defeasible and strict rules, for example as required in a legal setting. We provide a mapping of defeasible reasoning into assumption-based argumentation, and show that the framework obtained has properties of closedness and consistency, that have been advocated elsewhere as important for defeasible reasoning in the presence of strict rules. Whereas other argumentation approaches have been proven closed and consistent under some specific semantics, we prove that assumption-based argumentation is closed and consistent under all argumentation semantics.

Keywords

Inference Rule Logic Programming Deductive System Strict Rule Abstract Argumentation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Antoniou, G., et al.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(2), 255–287 (2001)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Billington, D., Rock, A.: Propositional plausible logic: Introduction and implementation. Studia Logica 67(2), 243–269 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bondarenko, A., et al.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93(1-2), 63–101 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: An axiomatic account of formal argumentation. In: Proc. AAAI (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dung, P.M.: The acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming and n-person game. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 170, 114–159 (2006)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation. In: 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2006) (September 2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, Special Issue on Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence (to appear, 2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garcia, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Journal of Theory and Practice of Logic Prog. 4(1-2), 95–138 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Governatori, G., et al.: A formal approach to protocols and strategies for (legal) negotiation. In: Procedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 168–177 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Governatori, G., et al.: Argumentation semantics for defeasible logics. Journal of Logic and Computation 14(5), 675–702 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grosof, B.N.: Prioritized conflict handling for logic programs. In: Proc. Int. Logic Programming Symposium, pp. 197–211 (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kakas, A.C., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: AAMAS, pp. 883–890 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abstract argumentation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law, Special Issue on Logical Models of Argumentation 4(3-4), 275–296 (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nute, D.: Defeasible reasoning. In: Fetzer, J.H. (ed.) Aspects of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 251–288. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1987)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nute, D.: Apparent obligation. In: Nute, D. (ed.) Defeasible Deontic Logic, pp. 287–316. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pollock, J.: Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11(4), 481–518 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7(1), 25–75 (1997)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: The role of logic in computational models of legal argument: A critical survey. In: Kakas, A.C., Sadri, F. (eds.) Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2408, pp. 342–381. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Toni, F., Kowalski, R.A.: Reduction of abductive logic programs to normal logic programs. In: ICLP, pp. 367–381 (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesca Toni
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ComputingImperial College London 

Personalised recommendations