On Explanations for Non-Acceptable Arguments

Argumentation has the unique advantage of giving explanations to reasoning processes and results. Recent work studied how to give explanations for arguments that are acceptable, in terms of arguments defending it. This paper studies the counterpart of this problem by formalising explanations for arguments that are not acceptable. We give two different views (an argument-view and an attack-view) in explaining the non-acceptability of an argument and show the computation of explanations with debate trees.

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

[2]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Change in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks: Adding an Argument , 2010, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

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

[4]  Ringo Baumann.  What Does it Take to Enforce an Argument? Minimal Change in abstract Argumentation , 2012, ECAI.

[5]  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..

[6]  D. Walton,et al.  Commitment In Dialogue , 1995 .

[7]  Chiaki Sakama.  Abduction in Argumentation Frameworks and Its Use in Debate Games , 2013, JSAI-isAI Workshops.

[8]  Francesca Toni,et al.  On Computing Explanations in Argumentation , 2015, AAAI.

[9]  Serena Villata,et al.  Rewriting Rules for the Computation of Goal-Oriented Changes in an Argumentation System , 2013, CLIMA.

[10]  Henry Prakken,et al.  DOI: 10.1017/S000000000000000 Printed in the United Kingdom Formal systems for persuasion dialogue , 2022 .

[11]  Abdallah Arioua,et al.  Query Failure Explanation in Inconsistent Knowledge Bases: A Dialogical Approach , 2014, SGAI Conf..

[12]  Abdallah Arioua,et al.  Query Failure Explanation in Inconsistent Knowledge Bases Using Argumentation , 2014, COMMA.

[13]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  Behavioral Experiments for Assessing the Abstract Argumentation Semantics of Reinstatement , 2010, Cogn. Sci..

[14]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Argument Theory Change: Revision Upon Warrant , 2008, COMMA.

[15]  Nava Tintarev,et al.  Formal Arguments, Preferences, and Natural Language Interfaces to Humans: an Empirical Evaluation , 2014, ECAI.

[16]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  The Added Value of Argumentation , 2013 .

[17]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Change in Argumentation Systems: Exploring the Interest of Removing an Argument , 2011, SUM.

[18]  Francesca Toni,et al.  Decision Making with Assumption-Based Argumentation , 2013, TAFA.

[19]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Assumption-Based Argumentation , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

[20]  Francesca Toni,et al.  A tutorial on assumption-based argumentation , 2014, Argument Comput..

[21]  Nava Tintarev,et al.  Evaluating the effectiveness of explanations for recommender systems , 2012, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[22]  Francesca Toni,et al.  On Computing Explanations in Abstract Argumentation , 2014, ECAI.

[23]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Abduction and Dialogical Proof in Argumentation and Logic Programming , 2014, ECAI.

[24]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Computing Dialectical Trees Efficiently in Possibilistic Defeasible Logic Programming , 2005, LPNMR.

[25]  Henry Prakken,et al.  The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial , 2014, Argument Comput..

[26]  Ringo Baumann,et al.  Expanding Argumentation Frameworks: Enforcing and Monotonicity Results , 2010, COMMA.