Argumentation Context Systems: A Framework for Abstract Group Argumentation

We introduce a modular framework for distributed abstract argumentation where the argumentation context, that is information about preferences among arguments, values, validity, reasoning mode (skeptical vs. credulous) and even the chosen semantics can be explicitly represented. The framework consists of a collection of abstract argument systems connected via mediators. Each mediator integrates information coming from connected argument systems (thereby handling conflicts within this information) and provides the context used in a particular argumentation module. The framework can be used in different directions; e.g., for hierarchic argumentation as typically found in legal reasoning, or to model group argumentation processes.

[1]  Gerhard Brewka,et al.  Preferred Subtheories: An Extended Logical Framework for Default Reasoning , 1989, IJCAI.

[2]  Gio Wiederhold,et al.  Mediators in the architecture of future information systems , 1992, Computer.

[3]  Fausto Giunchiglia,et al.  Multilanguage hierarchical logics (or: how we can do without modal logics) , 1994, CNKBS.

[4]  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..

[5]  Yannis Dimopoulos,et al.  Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories , 1996 .

[6]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments in Preference-based Argumentation , 1998, UAI.

[7]  Frank Wolter,et al.  Semi-qualitative Reasoning about Distances: A Preliminary Report , 2000, JELIA.

[8]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Coherence in finite argument systems , 2002, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Value-based argumentation frameworks , 2002, NMR.

[10]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

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

[12]  Floris Roelofsen,et al.  Minimal and Absent Information in Contexts , 2005, IJCAI.

[13]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  On the meta-logic of arguments , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[14]  Sanjay Modgil,et al.  Hierarchical Argumentation , 2006, JELIA.

[15]  Thomas Eiter,et al.  Equilibria in Heterogeneous Nonmonotonic Multi-Context Systems , 2007, AAAI.

[16]  Paolo Mancarella,et al.  Computing ideal sceptical argumentation , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[17]  Sheila A. McIlraith,et al.  Peer-to-Peer Query Answering with Inconsistent Knowledge , 2008, KR.

[18]  Gabriele Kern-Isberner,et al.  A Distributed Argumentation Framework using Defeasible Logic Programming , 2008, COMMA.

[19]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Modelling Judicial Context in Argumentation Frameworks , 2008, COMMA.

[20]  Pavlos Moraitis,et al.  Theoretical and Computational Properties of Preference-based Argumentation , 2008, ECAI.

[21]  Sanjay Modgil,et al.  Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks , 2009, Artif. Intell..