A Unified Framework for Representation and Development of Dialectical Proof Procedures in Argumentation

We present an unified methodology for representation and development of dialectical proof procedures in abstract argumentation based on the notions of legal environments and dispute derivations. A legal environment specifies the legal moves of the dispute parties while a dispute derivation describes the procedure structure. A key insight of this paper is that the opponent moves determine the soundness of a dispute while the completeness of a dispute procedure depends on the proponent moves.

[1]  Dirk Vermeir,et al.  Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks , 1999, ICAIL '99.

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

[3]  Sanjay Modgil,et al.  Proof Theories and Algorithms for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks , 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]  Bart Verheij,et al.  A Labeling Approach to the Computation of Credulous Acceptance in Argumentation , 2007, IJCAI.

[6]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Credulous and Sceptical Argument Games for Preferred Semantics , 2000, JELIA.

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

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

[9]  Antonis C. Kakas,et al.  Computing Argumentation in Logic Programming , 1999, J. Log. Comput..

[10]  L. Liverpool.  Two Party Immediate Response Disputes: Properties and Efficiency , 2001 .

[11]  Sanjay Modgil,et al.  Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence , 2009 .

[12]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  An Argumentation-Theoretic Foundations for Logic Programming , 1995, J. Log. Program..

[13]  Gerard Vreeswijk.  An algorithm to compute minimally grounded and admissible defence sets in argument systems , 2006, COMMA.

[14]  Robert A. Kowalski,et al.  Abduction Compared with Negation by Failure , 1989, ICLP.

[15]  A.R.C.S. A. H. Loveless.  What is an abstract ? , 1990 .

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

[17]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation , 2005, J. Log. Comput..