A characterization of collective conflict for defeasible argumentation

In this paper we define a recursive semantics for warrant in a general defeasible argumentation framework by formalizing a notion of collective (non-binary) conflict among arguments. This allows us to ensure direct and indirect consistency (in the sense of Caminada and Amgoud) without distinguishing between direct and indirect conflicts. Then, the general defeasible argumentation framework is extended by allowing to attach levels of preference to defeasible knowledge items and by providing a level-wise definition of warranted and blocked conclusions. Finally, we formalize the warrant recursive semantics for the particular framework of Possibilistic Defeasible Logic Programming, characterize the unique output program property and design an efficient algorithm for computing warranted conclusions in polynomial space.

[1]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  A logic programming framework for possibilistic argumentation: Formalization and logical properties , 2008, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

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

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

[4]  Teresa Alsinet,et al.  A Level-based Approach to Computing Warranted Arguments in Possibilistic Defeasible Logic Programming , 2008, COMMA.

[5]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  An analysis of the computational complexity of DeLP through game semantics , 2005 .

[6]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Elements of Argumentation , 2007, ECSQARU.

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

[8]  John L. Pollock,et al.  A Recursive Semantics for Defeasible Reasoning , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

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

[10]  Pablo R. Fillottrani,et al.  On Complexity of DeLP through Game Semantics On the Complexity of DeLP through Game Semantics ∗ , 2006 .

[11]  V. S. Costa,et al.  Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , 2010 .

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

[13]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Computing Dialectical Trees Efficiently in Possibilistic Defeasible Logic Programming , 2005, LPNMR.

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

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

[16]  Ana Gabriela Maguitman,et al.  Logical models of argument , 2000, CSUR.