Assumption-Based Argumentation for Closed and Consistent Defeasible Reasoning
- 835 Downloads
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.
KeywordsInference Rule Logic Programming Deductive System Strict Rule Abstract Argumentation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 4.Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: An axiomatic account of formal argumentation. In: Proc. AAAI (2005)Google Scholar
- 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.Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, Special Issue on Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence (to appear, 2007)Google Scholar
- 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
- 12.Grosof, B.N.: Prioritized conflict handling for logic programs. In: Proc. Int. Logic Programming Symposium, pp. 197–211 (1996)Google Scholar
- 13.Kakas, A.C., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: AAMAS, pp. 883–890 (2003)Google Scholar
- 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.Nute, D.: Defeasible reasoning. In: Fetzer, J.H. (ed.) Aspects of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 251–288. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1987)Google Scholar
- 16.Nute, D.: Apparent obligation. In: Nute, D. (ed.) Defeasible Deontic Logic, pp. 287–316. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1997)Google Scholar
- 20.Toni, F., Kowalski, R.A.: Reduction of abductive logic programs to normal logic programs. In: ICLP, pp. 367–381 (1995)Google Scholar