A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments

Argumentation is a reasoning model based on the construction of arguments and counter-arguments (or defeaters) followed by the selection of the most acceptable of them. In this paper, we refine the argumentation framework proposed by Dung by taking into account preference relations between arguments in order to integrate two complementary points of view on the concept of acceptability: acceptability based on the existence of direct counter-arguments and acceptability based on the existence of defenders. An argument is thus acceptable if it is preferred to its direct defeaters or if it is defended against its defeaters. This also refines previous works by Prakken and Sartor, by associating with each argument a notion of strength, while these authors embed preferences in the definition of the defeat relation. We propose a revised proof theory in terms of AND/OR trees, verifying if a given argument is acceptable, which better reflects the dialectical form of argumentation.

[1]  Jürg Kohlas,et al.  Probabilistic Argumentation Systems and Abduction , 2002, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[2]  Leïla Amgoud,et al.  Contribution a l'integration des preferences dans le raisonnement argumentatif , 1999 .

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

[4]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Comparing arguments using preference orderings for argument-based reasoning , 1996, Proceedings Eighth IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence.

[5]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Paul J. Krause,et al.  Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information , 1993, UAI.

[7]  Simon Parsons,et al.  Arguments, Dialogue, and Negotiation , 2000, ECAI.

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

[9]  Gadi Pinkas,et al.  Reasoning from Inconsistency: A Taxonomy of Principles for Resolving Conflict , 1992, KR.

[10]  Fangzhen Lin,et al.  Argument Systems: A Uniform Basis for Nonmonotonic Reasoning , 1989, KR.

[11]  Gerard Vreeswijk,et al.  The Feasibility of Defeat in Defeasible Reasoning , 1991, KR.

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

[13]  Simon Parsons,et al.  Modelling dialogues using argumentation , 2000, Proceedings Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems.

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

[15]  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..

[16]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Management of Preferences in Assumption-Based Reasoning , 1992, IPMU.

[17]  Gerhard Brewka.  Reasoning about Priorities in Default Logic , 1994, AAAI.

[18]  Henry Prakken,et al.  On the relation between legal language and legal argument: assumptions, applicability and dynamic priorities , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[19]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[20]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Logic Programming , 1993, IJCAI.

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

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

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