Assumption-Based Argumentation for Closed and Consistent Defeasible Reasoning

Assumption-based argumentation is a concrete but general-purpose argumentation framework that has been shown, in particular, to generalise several existing mechanisms for non-monotonic reasoning, and is equipped with a computational counterpart and an implemented system. It can thus serve as a computational tool for argumentation-based reasoning, and for automatising the process of finding solutions to problems that can be understood in assumption-based argumentation terms. In this paper we consider the problem of reasoning with defeasible and strict rules, for example as required in a legal setting. We provide a mapping of defeasible reasoning into assumption-based argumentation, and show that the framework obtained has properties of closedness and consistency, that have been advocated elsewhere as important for defeasible reasoning in the presence of strict rules. Whereas other argumentation approaches have been proven closed and consistent under some specific semantics, we prove that assumption-based argumentation is closed and consistent under all argumentation semantics.

[1]  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..

[2]  Michael J. Maher,et al.  Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logic , 2004, J. Log. Comput..

[3]  Martin Caminada,et al.  An Axiomatic Account of Formal Argumentation , 2005, BNAIC.

[4]  Paolo Mancarella,et al.  A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation , 2006, COMMA.

[5]  Michael J. Maher,et al.  Representation results for defeasible logic , 2000, TOCL.

[6]  Benjamin N. Grosof.  Prioritized Conflict Handling for Logic Programs , 1997, ILPS.

[7]  Francesca Toni,et al.  Abstract argumentation , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[8]  Francesca Toni,et al.  Reduction of Abductive Logic Programs to Normal Logic Programs , 1995, ICLP.

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

[10]  Antonis C. Kakas,et al.  Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[11]  Benjamin N. Grosof.  Prioritized conflict handing for logic programs , 1997, International Conference on Logic Programming.

[12]  John L. Pollock,et al.  Defeasible Reasoning , 2020, Synthese Library.

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

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

[15]  Guido Governatori,et al.  A formal approach to protocols and strategies for (legal) negotiation , 2001, ICAIL '01.

[16]  David Billington,et al.  Propositional Plausible Logic: Introduction and Implementation , 2001, Stud Logica.

[17]  James H. Fetzer.  Aspects of Artificial Intelligence , 1987 .

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

[19]  Antonis C. Kakas,et al.  Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond , 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

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

[21]  Henry Prakken,et al.  The Role of Logic in Computational Models of Legal Argument: A Critical Survey , 2002, Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond.