A Brief Overview of Research in Argumentation Systems

  • Guillermo R. Simari
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6929)


The area of argumentation in Artificial Intelligence has been steadily growing for the last three decades. Many subareas have been delineated within it as the research expanded, giving birth to a field that is exciting, fruitful and rewarding. The challenges are many, and they are met with methods and techniques that have enriched the field of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. In this paper, a short structured overview of research in the area of Argumentation Systems will be provided in order to lay a foundation for further discussion. This overview will also bring about a personal perspective of the future directions of research and development of the area.


Multiagent System Belief Base 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., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: On the bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. In: Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T. (eds.) NMR, pp. 1–9 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Semantics of abstract argument systems. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 24–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Value-based argumentation frameworks. In: Benferhat, S., Giunchiglia, E. (eds.) NMR, pp. 443–454 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Special Issue on Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15) (July-October 2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 619–641 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A Logic-Based Theory of Deductive Arguments. Artif. Intell. 128(1-2), 203–235 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Argumentation based on classical logic. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 133–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caminada, M.: A Gentle Introduction to Argumentation Semantics (2008),
  10. 10.
    Chesñevar, C.I., Maguitman, A.G., Loui, R.P.: Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys 32(4), 337–383 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Constrained argumentation frameworks. In: Doherty, P., Mylopoulos, J., Welty, C.A. (eds.) KR, pp. 112–122. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dix, J., Parsons, S., Prakken, H., Simari, G.R.: Research Challenges for Argumentation. Computer Science - R&D 23(1), 27–34 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–358 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1-2), 95–138 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Griswold, C.: Plato on rhetoric and poetry. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 edn.) (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Modgil, S., Caminada, M.: Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 105–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 173, 901–934 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11(4), 481–518 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation 1, 93–124 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 4, pp. 218–319. Kluwer Academic Pub., Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rahwan, I.: Special Issue on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11(2) (September 2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rahwan, I., McBurney, P.: Guest editors’ Argumentation Technology. IEEE Intelligent Systems 22(6), 21–23 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rapp, C.: Aristotle’s rhetoric. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2010 edn.) (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reed, C., Grasso, F.: Recent Advances in Computational Models of Natural Argument. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 22(1), 1–15 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Simari, G.R., Loui, R.P.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53(2-3), 125–157 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stolzenburg, F., García, A., Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G.R.: Computing Generalized Specificity. Journal of Non-Classical Logics 13(1), 87–113 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guillermo R. Simari
    • 1
  1. 1.Artificial Intelligence Research & Development Laboratory (LIDIA)Universidad Nacional del Sur (UNS)Bahía BlancaArgentina

Personalised recommendations