Skip to main content

Evaluating Networks of Arguments: A Case Study in Mīmāṃsā Dialectics

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNTCS,volume 11813)


We formalize networks of authored arguments. These networks are then mapped to \(ASPIC{^+}\) theories that subsequently instantiate Extended Argumentation Frameworks. Evaluation of arguments in the latter determines the status of the arguments in the source networks. The methodology is illustrated through a collaboration between scholars of South Asian philosophy, logicians and formal argumentation theorists, analyzing excerpts of Sanskrit texts concerning a controversial normative debate within the philosophical school of Mīmāṃsā.


  • Instantiated arguments
  • Extended argumentation frameworks
  • \(ASPIC{^+}\)
  • Argument networks
  • Dialectics
  • Mīmāṃsā philosophy

Work partially funded by the projects WWTF MA16-028 and FWF W1255-N23.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-60292-8_26
  • Chapter length: 15 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
USD   69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-662-60292-8
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.


  1. 1.

    Different interpretations of these arguments might be implemented in \(ASPIC{^+}\), and compared and evaluated on their logical consequences.


  1. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M., Livet, P.: On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 23(10), 1062–1093 (2008)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  2. Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    MathSciNet  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Brick, D.: The dharmaśāstric debate on widow-burning. J. Am. Orient. Soc. 130(2), 203–223 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5–6), 286–310 (2007)

    MathSciNet  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Ciabattoni, A., Freschi, E., Genco, F.A., Lellmann, B.: deontic logic: proof theory and applications. In: De Nivelle, H. (ed.) TABLEAUX 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9323, pp. 323–338. Springer, Cham (2015).

    Google Scholar 

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

    MathSciNet  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. Freschi, E., Ollett, A., Pascucci, M.: Duty and Sacrifice. A Logical Analysis of the Theory of Vedic Injunctions. History and Philosophy of Logic (2019, forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hunter, A., et al.: Tutorials on structured argumentation. Argument Comput. 5(1), 1–4 (2014)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 173(9–10), 901–934 (2009)

    MathSciNet  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. Modgil, S.: Revisiting abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds.) TAFA 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8306, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).

    CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Modgil, S.: Towards a general framework for dialogues that accommodate reasoning about preferences. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds.) TAFA 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10757, pp. 175–191. Springer, Cham (2018).

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: Reasoning about preferences in structured extended argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the COMMA 2010, pp. 347–358 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artif. Intell. 195, 361–397 (2013)

    MathSciNet  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. Nielsen, S.H., Parsons, S.: A generalization of dung’s abstract framework for argumentation: arguing with sets of attacking arguments. In: Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4766, pp. 54–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).

    CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Semantics for evidence-based argumentation. In: Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2008), pp. 276–284. IOS Press (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Prakken, H.: Historical overview of formal argumentation. In: Baroni, P., Gabbay, D., Giacomin, M., van der Torre, L. (eds.) Handbook of Formal Argumentation, pp. 75–144. College Publications, London (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sakuntala, N.: Sati, Widow Burning in India. Viking, Doubleday, New Delhi (1992)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Kees van Berkel or Sanjay Modgil .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

van Berkel, K., Ciabattoni, A., Freschi, E., Modgil, S. (2019). Evaluating Networks of Arguments: A Case Study in Mīmāṃsā Dialectics. In: Blackburn, P., Lorini, E., Guo, M. (eds) Logic, Rationality, and Interaction. LORI 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11813. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Download citation

  • DOI:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-60291-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-60292-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)