Structural Properties for Deductive Argument Systems

There have been a number of proposals for using deductive arguments for instantiating abstract argumentation. These take a set of formulae as a knowledgebase, and generate a graph where each node is a logical argument and each arc is a logical attack. This then raises the question of whether for a specific logical argument system S, and for any graph G, there is a knowledgebase such that S generates G. If it holds, then it can be described as a kind of "structural" property of the system. If it fails then, it means that there are situations that cannot be captured by the system. In this paper, we explore some features, and the significance, of such structural properties. © 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

[1]  Guillermo R. Simari,et al.  Temporal Defeasible Reasoning , 2001, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[2]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  A logic-based theory of deductive arguments , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  On the Relation between Argumentation and Non-monotonic Coherence-Based Entailment , 1995, IJCAI.

[4]  Theo Tryfonas,et al.  Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications , 2009 .

[5]  Jeff Z. Pan,et al.  An Argument-Based Approach to Using Multiple Ontologies , 2009, SUM.

[6]  John Fox,et al.  A LOGIC OF ARGUMENTATION FOR REASONING UNDER UNCERTAINTY , 1995, Comput. Intell..

[7]  Pierre Marquis,et al.  Symmetric Argumentation Frameworks , 2005, ECSQARU.

[8]  Paul E. Dunne,et al.  Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph-theoretic constraints , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments , 2002, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[10]  John L. Pollock,et al.  Defeasible Reasoning , 2020, Synthese Library.

[11]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties , 2011, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Henry Prakken,et al.  An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments , 2010, Argument Comput..

[13]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Abstract Argumentation via Monadic Second Order Logic , 2012, SUM.

[14]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach , 2003, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[15]  Paul J. Krause,et al.  Acceptability of arguments as 'logical uncertainty' , 1993, ECSQARU.

[16]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Towards fixed-parameter tractable algorithms for abstract argumentation , 2012, Artif. Intell..

[17]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Argumentation Using Temporal Knowledge , 2008, COMMA.

[18]  Hajime Sawamura,et al.  A logic of multiple-valued argumentation , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[19]  John L. Pollock,et al.  How to Reason Defeasibly , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[20]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Base Logics in Argumentation , 2010, COMMA.

[21]  Morten Elvang-Gøransson,et al.  Argumentative Logics: Reasoning with Classically Inconsistent Information , 1995, Data Knowl. Eng..

[22]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation , 2006, Artif. Intell..

[23]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  A logic programming framework for possibilistic argumentation: Formalization and logical properties , 2008, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[24]  John Fox,et al.  Safe and sound - artificial intelligence in hazardous applications , 2000 .

[25]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..