Argumentation for Practical Reasoning: An Axiomatic Approach

An argument system could be viewed as a pair of a set of argument and a binary attack relation between arguments. The semantics of argumentation rests on the acceptability of arguments and the structure of arguments and their attack relations. While there is a relatively good understanding of the acceptability of arguments, the same can not be said about their structure and attack relations. In this paper, we present an axiomatic analysis of the attack relations of rule-based argument systems by presenting a set of simple and intuitive properties and showing that they indeed determine an uniquely defined common attack relations for rule-based argument systems.

[1]  D. M. Gabbaya.  Equational approach to argumentation networks , 2012 .

[2]  Miroslaw Truszczynski,et al.  Preferences and Nonmonotonic Reasoning , 2008, AI Mag..

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

[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]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Probabilistic qualification of attack in abstract argumentation , 2014, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[6]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  The modular logic of private international law , 2011, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[7]  Sanjay Modgil,et al.  Preferences and Unrestricted Rebut , 2014, COMMA.

[8]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  Semantics of Abstract Argument Systems , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

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

[10]  Brian A. Davey,et al.  An Introduction to Lattices and Order , 1989 .

[11]  Hector Geffner,et al.  Conditional Entailment: Bridging two Approaches to Default Reasoning , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Relating the Semantics of Abstract Dialectical Frameworks and Standard AFs , 2011, IJCAI.

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

[14]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities , 1997, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

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

[16]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  On Decision Problems Related to the Preferred Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[17]  Gerard Vreeswijk,et al.  Abstract Argumentation Systems , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[18]  Tran Cao Son,et al.  Reasoning with Prioritized Defaults , 1997, LPKR.

[19]  Jussi Rintanen.  Lexicographic Priorities in Default Logic , 1998, Artif. Intell..

[20]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Inferring from Inconsistency in Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks , 2002, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[21]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Probabilistic Argument Graphs for Argumentation Lotteries , 2014, COMMA.

[22]  Martin Caminada,et al.  On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[23]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Closure and Consistency In Logic-Associated Argumentation , 2014, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[24]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  An Abstract, Argumentation-Theoretic Approach to Default Reasoning , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[25]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A general account of argumentation with preferences , 2013, Artif. Intell..

[26]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argumentation in Legal Reasoning , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

[27]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  An axiomatic analysis of structured argumentation with priorities , 2016, Artif. Intell..

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

[29]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Integrating Preference Orderings into Argument-Based Reasoning , 1997, ECSQARU-FAPR.

[30]  Nir Oren,et al.  Probabilistic Argumentation Frameworks , 2011, TAFA.

[31]  Hans Tompits,et al.  A framework for compiling preferences in logic programs , 2002, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[32]  Thomas Eiter,et al.  Preferred Answer Sets for Extended Logic Programs , 1999, Artif. Intell..

[33]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  An Axiomatic Analysis of Structured Argumentation for Prioritized Default Reasoning , 2014, ECAI.

[34]  Phan Minh Dung.  A Canonical Semantics for Structured Argumentation with Priorities , 2016, COMMA.

[35]  Leila Amgoud,et al.  Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems , 2014, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[36]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Abstract Argumentation and Values , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

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

[38]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Towards (Probabilistic) Argumentation for Jury-based Dispute Resolution , 2010, COMMA.

[39]  Torsten Schaub,et al.  A Comparative Study of Logic Programs with Preference: Preliminary Report , 2001, Answer Set Programming.

[40]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  On Acceptability in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks with an Extended Defeat Relation , 2006, COMMA.

[41]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Aggregating evidence about the positive and negative effects of treatments , 2012, Artif. Intell. Medicine.