Metalevel argumentation

The abstract nature of Dung’s theory of argumentation accounts for its wide-spread application as a general framework for various species of non-monotonic reasoning, and, more generally, reasoning in the presence of conflict. In this article, we formalize reasoning about argumentation within the Dung argumentation paradigm itself. A metalevel Dung argumentation framework is itself instantiated by arguments that make statements about arguments, their interactions, and their evaluation in an object-level argumentation framework.We show how Dung’s theory, and object-level extensions of Dung’s theory, such as those intended to accommodate preferences, can then be uniformly characterised by metalevel argumentation in a Dung framework. We then discuss how this provides for application of the full range of theoretical and practical developments of Dung’s theory, to extensions of Dung’s theory, and provides for integration and further augmentation of these extensions.

[1]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  A Logic for Default Reasoning , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[2]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Agreeing to Differ : Modelling Persuasive Dialogue Between Parties With Different Values , 2003 .

[3]  Sanjay Modgil,et al.  Hierarchical Argumentation , 2006, JELIA.

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

[5]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  Resolution-based argumentation semantics , 2008, COMMA.

[6]  J. Searle.  Rationality in Action , 2001 .

[7]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Computational Representation of Practical Argument , 2006, Synthese.

[8]  井上 吉次郎.  人間 Hunter 伝 , 1970 .

[9]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Representation of Case Law as an Argumentation Framework , 2002 .

[10]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Two Approaches to Dialectical Argumentation: Admissible Sets and Argumentation Stages , 1999 .

[11]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Inconsistency tolerance in weighted argument systems , 2009, AAMAS.

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

[13]  Michael Luck,et al.  Argumentation Based Resolution of Conflicts between Desires and Normative Goals , 2009, ArgMAS.

[14]  Michael J. Maher,et al.  An Argumentation-Theoretic Characterization of Defeasible Logic , 2000, ECAI.

[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]  Serena Villata,et al.  On the Acceptability of Meta-arguments , 2009, 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology.

[17]  Martin Caminada,et al.  On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation , 2006, JELIA.

[18]  Sanjay Modgil,et al.  An Abstract Theory of Argumentation That Accommodates Defeasible Reasoning About Preferences , 2007, ECSQARU.

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

[20]  Sanjay Modgil,et al.  Value Based Argumentation in Hierarchical Argumentation Frameworks , 2006, COMMA.

[21]  Dov M. Gabbay.  Semantics for Higher Level Attacks in Extended Argumentation Frames Part 1: Overview , 2009, Stud Logica.

[22]  Srdjan Vesic,et al.  Repairing Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks , 2009, IJCAI.

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

[24]  Dirk Vermeir,et al.  Robust Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks , 1999, J. Log. Comput..

[25]  Sanjay Modgil,et al.  Proof Theories and Algorithms for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

[26]  Pavlos Moraitis,et al.  A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation , 2007, AAMAS '07.

[27]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Integrating Dialectical and Accrual Modes of Argumentation , 2010, COMMA.

[28]  L. Amgoud,et al.  On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks , 2008 .

[29]  Martin Caminada.  An Algorithm for Computing Semi-stable Semantics , 2007, ECSQARU.

[30]  Sanjay Modgil,et al.  Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks , 2009, Artif. Intell..

[31]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning , 2005, ICAIL '05.

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

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

[34]  Alexander Bochman,et al.  Collective Argumentation and Disjunctive Logic Programming , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[35]  Serena Villata,et al.  Social Viewpoints for Arguing about Coalitions , 2008, PRIMA.

[36]  Sanjay Modgil.  An Argumentation Based Semantics for Agent Reasoning , 2007, LADS.

[37]  Simon Parsons,et al.  A Generalization of Dung's Abstract Framework for Argumentation: Arguing with Sets of Attacking Arguments , 2006, ArgMAS.

[38]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Coalitions of arguments: A tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks , 2010, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[39]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  An Argumentation Semantics for Logic Programming with Explicit Negation , 1993, ICLP.

[40]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  Encompassing Attacks to Attacks in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks , 2009, ECSQARU.

[41]  C. Reed.  Agreeing to Differ: Modelling Persuasive Dialogue Between Parties With Different Values , 2001 .

[42]  Nir Oren,et al.  Semantics for Evidence-Based Argumentation , 2008, COMMA.

[43]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Two party immediate response disputes: Properties and efficiency , 2003, Artif. Intell..

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

[45]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Audiences in argumentation frameworks , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[46]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Case law in extended argumentation frameworks , 2009, ICAIL.

[47]  Pablo Noriega,et al.  A Framework for Argumentation-Based Negotiation , 1997, ATAL.

[48]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments , 2002, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[49]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Temporal Dynamics of Support and Attack Networks: From Argumentation to Zoology , 2005, Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning.

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

[51]  Serena Villata,et al.  Meta-Argumentation Modelling I: Methodology and Techniques , 2009, Stud Logica.

[52]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Action-Based Alternating Transition Systems for Arguments about Action , 2007, AAAI.

[53]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  On the meta-logic of arguments , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[54]  S. Parsons,et al.  A Framework for Deliberation Dialogues , 2001 .

[55]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Practical First-Order Argumentation , 2005, AAAI.

[56]  Guido Boella,et al.  A Logic of Abstract Argumentation , 2005, ArgMAS.

[57]  Carole D. Hafner,et al.  Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link , 1993, ICAIL '93.

[58]  Leon van der Torre,et al.  Preference-based argumentation: Arguments supporting multiple values , 2008, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[59]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Integrating Object and Meta-Level Value Based Argumentation , 2008, COMMA.

[60]  Leila Amgoud,et al.  A Formal Framework for Handling Conflicting Desires , 2003, ECSQARU.

[61]  Bart Verheij,et al.  A Labeling Approach to the Computation of Credulous Acceptance in Argumentation , 2007, IJCAI.

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

[63]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  AFRA: Argumentation framework with recursive attacks , 2011, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[64]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argumentation in artificial intelligence , 2007, Artif. Intell..